Gambling Harms

14:30:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered gambling harms. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner—your premier chairmanship, I might add. I want to begin this debate by sharing a heartbreaking story about a young man, who I will call Ben. Tragically, last year, Ben took his own life at the age of just 19. He was addicted to gambling. In the two months leading up to his tragic suicide, he received 63 promotional emails from a single gambling company—63 emails, despite his addiction, relentlessly encouraging him to gamble. Despite his attempts to manage his gambling, Ben could not avoid being drawn back in by these persistent efforts. He ultimately felt that there was no way out. Ben’s story is not an anomaly. In fact, around 40% of gamblers who seek treatment in the UK have considered suicide. In 2023 the Government’s own national suicide prevention strategy cited gambling as one of the six main factors linked to suicide in the UK. Ben’s story is one example of how gambling addiction can lead to a tragic end, but Ben represents just one of the approximately 400 people across the UK who lose their lives to gambling each year. Last week I had the deeply moving experience of meeting families who have lost children to such suicides. Their grief and pain are unimaginable, and their stories underscore the urgent need for further measures to address the crisis. During the meeting I spoke to Liz. Liz and Charles Ritchie lost their son Jack in November 2017. Jack was aged just 24. He had started gambling when he was 17. It was fixed-odds betting terminals that got him into gambling. These terminals are extremely addictive, and Jack found it increasingly difficult to stop. He reached out to his parents, and they helped him to exclude himself from the local bookmakers, but he was then drawn into gambling online. He again looked for help, this time installing blocking software on his computer. Over the years, Jack managed to stop gambling for long periods of time, but the ubiquity of gambling marketing during his time at university made it impossible for him to escape. In 2017 Jack was lured back into gambling and relapsed for the last time. At Jack’s inquest, which found that gambling had led to his death, the coroner highlighted the inadequacy of gambling regulation and the poor state of information and treatment. Jack’s parents have dedicated their lives to raising awareness of gambling disorders, and his dad Charles is in the Gallery for this debate. Every year hundreds of people across the UK end their own lives because of gambling, but there are many whose lives are hurt in other ways—through mental ill health, soaring debts, family break-ups and more.

Does my hon. Friend agree with my perspective as a public health doctor that there is a need for population-level interventions? There is ample evidence of a need for stronger policy and regulatory controls that protect public health and wellbeing and prevent harm. Gambling is not simply a cultural pastime for people or a leisure facility; it is an addiction and it needs to be addressed appropriately.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that a population approach is appropriate in this case, particularly considering the number of people that are harmed and the NHS’s expertise in this area. As a country we are experiencing record levels of harm caused by gambling. The most recent statistics from the Gambling Commission show that the scale of harm in the UK is huge, with 2.5% of adults—well over a million people—experiencing the most severe gambling harms. The Royal College of Psychiatrists tells me that it has seen a threefold increase in those referred for gambling treatment since people moved online during the pandemic. The Dudley-based charity Gordon Moody, which provides gambling treatment centres across the west midlands, tells me that it has seen an increase in referrals, especially among younger people. Last year it received 12,000 applications for its six-week treatment programme.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. According to GambleAware, around one in eight people in my Shipley constituency engage in gambling behaviour that is deemed to be harmful. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), I see gambling as an addiction and a public health issue. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce the statutory levy on gambling and to put that £50 million into NHS services. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that there are NHS services in every part of the country to support those suffering from gambling addiction?

I agree with my hon. Friend and will come on to the statutory levy in a moment. It is particularly important that that fund is used not just for treatment, but for prevention; I will talk a little bit about that as I get through my speech. Last year, the Gordon Moody charity received 12,000 applications for its six-week programme. That clear spike in gambling harm goes hand in hand with the increase in online gambling. As people turned to online gambling during the pandemic, they were often engaged in the most harmful forms of gambling. Online slots, for example, have all the characteristics associated with the most problematic types of gambling: the high speed of play, making it easier to quickly and repeatedly receive the psychological hit and potentially rack up huge debts; the ease of availability, allowing people 24/7 access from home through their smartphone, where they are potentially at their most vulnerable, and relentless marketing, with advertising ever present on social media and videogames, as well as in offers through email.

My hon. Friend is speaking very movingly about these tragic cases. I was also at the Gambling with Lives annual forum, and I met Lesley Wade, who tragically lost her son Aaron to gambling-related harm. He was 30, with a bright future ahead of him. His brother lives in my constituency. This insidious industry constantly offered Aaron perks and freebies, such as so-called VIP clubs, free tickets to football matches and hospitality. These companies are like parasites preying on people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast pay packets of the CEOs of some of the companies in this pernicious industry are not worth a single life, and that we must do all we can to reduce the number of lives lost?

Order. Can I remind Members that interventions must be short.

I agree with my hon. Friend that gambling companies are often preying on the most vulnerable in our society; those with the least and the most to lose. I wholeheartedly agree that stronger regulation is needed, and I will talk about that somewhat as I go. Children and young people are particularly at risk. Just last week, The i Paper newspaper reported that children playing free mobile phone games are being targeted with gambling advertisements. Such adverts are priming children to gamble as soon as they are old enough to do so. A critical part of tackling gambling harms has to be stronger regulations on marketing, advertising and sponsorship. Both Ben and Jack were drawn back into gambling by the constant offers and inducements to gamble that were seen everywhere. We cannot now watch a football match without being bombarded by gambling adverts. At the opening weekend of the premier league this season, there were 29,000 gambling messages—a 165% increase on the year before. How is that acceptable in a sport that so many children enjoy?

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are falling behind other countries with evidence of less harm? Countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain have chosen almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. Does he agree that we need stronger controls to protect people, especially children, from harmful gambling advertising?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. Many European countries, as well as Australia, have put forward much stronger restrictions on gambling advertising, and it is very important for the protection of our children that we follow suit. It is also the same on social media: on X—formerly known as Twitter—alone, there are now 1 million gambling adverts every year. The industry is clearly doubling down on this approach as it spends £1.5 billion a year on gambling advertising in the UK. While the gambling industry sometimes attempts to frame advertising and marketing as having no connection to harm, there is ample evidence that the marketing increases the use of the most harmful forms of gambling. Online incentivisation schemes, including VIP schemes, bonuses and free spins, are evidence that gambling companies think marketing gets people to gamble in their most profitable and harmful sectors. Advertising and the exposure to gambling cues are the No. 1 issue for patients who access NHS gambling services, and 87% of people with a gambling disorder said that marketing and advertising prompted them to gamble when they otherwise were not going to. I spoke earlier of Ben, who was contacted more than once a day in the months leading up to his death. That level of contact and pressure must be addressed; it is simply unethical and puts gambling profits above the lives of our young people.

I also had a deeply moving meeting last week with a constituent whose son, aged just 19, had tragically taken his own life, having become addicted to online gambling after six months of the same sort of advertising pressure my hon. Friend described. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for all parts of Government to acknowledge that problem gambling has become a public health emergency, that it is not enough for gambling to be left to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport alone to regulate and that it is time to stop listening to gambling operators’ siren voices?

I agree that the time to act is now—we need stronger regulations and stronger presence of the health system in our response.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. One death is one too many. However, 22.5 million people in this country gamble and enjoy betting safely without any problems, and there are 42,000 employed in betting shops on our hard-pressed high streets. Is it not important that we have regulation that is proportionate in the impact it has on this industry, which is so important to the United Kingdom?

I agree that balance is important, but the situations that hon. Members have described in this debate show that balance is not there at the moment. No one is suggesting banning traditional forms of gambling such as bookmakers, horseracing, lotteries and so on. However, pernicious advertising and harmful online gambling need to be properly regulated, and that is not happening at the moment.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for arriving a little late to his opening remarks. The point is that the occasional flutter on the Grand National or a game of bingo, such as my mother played, is a world away from the gambling that he describes. A statutory levy has been announced; will he ask the Minister perhaps to talk about how it will operate? It must not be controlled by the very people who are doing the harm.

I am delighted that the right hon. Member raises this important point, and I agree with him wholeheartedly; I will come on to the levy in a moment. The public, too, are concerned about gambling advertising, with opinion polls consistently showing most people in the UK want a clampdown. As we have heard, we fall well behind other countries, with the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all having almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. We can clearly see that the boom in online gambling and huge rise in advertising and marketing is leading to an increase in gambling harms. That leads me on to the legislation, which is in urgent need of an update. The last time primary gambling legislation was put forward was the Gambling Act 2005, which established the Gambling Commission, with the primary aims of preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, ensuring that it was conducted fairly and openly, and protecting children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling companies. The Act was delivered before the rise of online gambling and before smartphones even existed; it is an analogue Act in a digital age and has long been in need of an update. However, I was pleased to see the statutory levy introduced last week by the Government, which will generate £100 million from gambling operators to fund the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms —without a doubt, an important step in ensuring that the industry begins to pay for the harm it causes. While the changes to the levy are welcome, however, we lack clarity on where the money raised through the levy will go on prevention. It is important that prevention commissioning is undertaken independently of the gambling industry. We cannot expect people to access services commissioned by the industry that they have been harmed or exploited by.

My hon. Friend has just spoken about the levy, which is a big step forward. Does he agree that prevention needs to focus on people who are at immediate risk but also, more widely, on our education system and services for young people?

Yes, I agree that it is important that prevention should work across the piece, but I think it is more important to reduce the ubiquity of advertising that our young people are exposed to. They do not need to learn too young about gambling, and prevention should take that into account. As I said, the changes to the levy are welcome, but we lack clarity on where the money that is raised will go with regard to prevention. It is important that the prevention commissioner be from the Department of Health and Social Care, given the synergy between the role and the Department’s current expertise in the delivery of similar services. The introduction of the levy is a good first step, but it is just that—a first step. Two decades on from the Gambling Act, further action is needed to protect individuals and families from harm. I am thinking of the families of Ben and Jack and the thousands of others who have lost someone to gambling-related suicide, as well as the more than 1 million people who are experiencing gambling harms right now. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform, working with Members from both sides of the House to minimise the harms from gambling—I am pleased to see so many of them present. I will highlight to the Minister some of the proposals on which the group has been working. I ask the Minister to continue to monitor and regularly review the statutory levy on gambling operators. As I mentioned, it is important that the levy should commission preventive work independent of the gambling industry. I ask that mandatory affordability checks be implemented, which would help to prevent individuals from gambling beyond their means by identifying those at risk of financial harm and providing timely interventions. I ask the Minister to commit to properly investigating every gambling-related suicide. Families such as Ben’s and Jack’s deserve each of these tragedies to be fully examined to understand the underlying causes and to develop better strategies for prevention. I would encourage the introduction of a gambling ombudsman to deal with disputes and provide appropriate redress where a customer suffered harm due to the operator’s social responsibility failure. I would strongly push for greater restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and inducements. We need to stop the practices that encourage children to gamble and that create unavoidable risks for the more than 1 million adults who are already suffering harms from gambling. Many of these challenges can be addressed by reviewing the 2005 Act in the light of the huge technological developments that have happened over the last two decades. That would allow us to follow through on the Labour party’s manifesto commitment to reduce gambling harms.

I thank my hon. Friend for organising this much-needed debate; I will declare a conflict of interest in that my partner runs the licensing team for a local authority in London. Is my hon. Friend aware of the 2021 University of Bristol study that found that betting shops are 10 times more likely to be in deprived towns than in affluent areas? It also found that although only 10% of food stores are located in the poorest areas, those places are home to 34% of amusement arcades, 30% of bingo venues and 29% of adult gaming centres. Will he join me in asking the Minister to take steps to give more powers to stop the proliferation of such—

Order. I call Alex Ballinger.

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I support her call. It is very concerning that those sites are concentrated around the most deprived areas in our society—arguably, the areas that need greater investment rather than money being extracted from their communities. The 2005 Act is an analogue law in a digital age. The harms from online gambling have accelerated since covid, and it is vital that the Government act now to protect gamblers from harm. The stories of Ben and Jack are a stark reminder of the urgent need for comprehensive gambling reform. We cannot wait any longer.

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate. I am imposing an informal time limit of two and a half minutes.

14:48:00

Mr Turner, it is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in one of these debates, even if you are not speaking on the subject. It is great to have you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on obtaining this debate. It is great to see so many Government Members taking part; there have been times previously when it was a lonely business for Members on both sides of the House to push this issue. The APPG continues to do its work because, as the hon. Member for Halesowen will know as a member of the group, there is a continuing demand to bring this industry under better control. It is massively well understood that the harms this industry is capable of need to be checked. It started when we campaigned to get the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals reduced to £2. That was attacked, but we got it through, and it has led to a dramatic improvement in behaviour in betting shops and among those who use those machines after having far too much to drink in the evening. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was right to say that the number of betting shops that proliferate around housing estates is something to be seen, and it is because those companies want to get people who have picked up their benefits or their wage packet en route home. Some of them never make it home because they end up in the betting shop. Of course, that makes poverty even worse, because the families do not get the money, and it is wasted. That is a real issue. I will not repeat all the points that the hon. Member for Halesowen made, but he is right that the original legislation is completely out of date, because it was made for an analogue world when it was either the betting shops or nothing at all. Gambling has now proliferated in cyber-space. During lockdown, there were huge problems with gambling harms. People were sitting in their rooms for hours on end, spending money they did not have and ending up in massive debt. Suicides took place. The hon. Member mentioned his constituent, and my heart grieves for the family. I have met far too many families who have been in that position. If anybody disagrees with us about this subject, they should go and meet those who have lost their sons and daughters to the terrible scourge of gambling online late at night—on the slots, for the most part. The argument is put to us endlessly: “This will close down horseracing. This will close down sport.” This work has nothing to do with that, because betting on a horserace is not the same as someone sitting in their room late at night on a slot, constantly pounded by the desire to bet more, bet faster, immediately. It will never damage horseracing—its purpose is not to damage sport—but some gambling companies are now pursuing children through various algorithms used in online games, and that has to be stopped. Although the online stake limit has been reduced to £5, we think that is too high. The limit in betting shops has been reduced to £2, so why not have both at the same level? It seems a peculiar last-minute cop-out to the gambling industry to keep it at £5. It should be brought into line with the betting limits on fixed-odds betting terminals—that would make complete sense. I ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues and to those in the Treasury, whose hand is always seen in this debate because they are worried about the revenues. There are revenues and then there are revenues, and this particular set of revenues needs to be received with a very careful eye. I welcome the introduction of the levy, which we campaigned for, and congratulate the Government on bringing it in, because it is vital. It does not just go to charities for their work in supporting those who have suffered as a result of gambling; vitally, it also goes into research so that we can look at what is happening. This is a fast-moving area online, and with the amount of money being spent by gambling companies, it is wholly feasible that they will find ways around what we are trying to do and use it in a pernicious way to increase their profits. I have nothing against gambling companies. In a free world, they are more than welcome to give access to people who wish to bet on different things, but the real problem lies in the lack of any sense of remorse shown in conversations we have had with the gambling industry. The simple fact is that they make money when those who gamble lose theirs. One of the areas we noted was those companies’ pursuit of people who have got into the habit of losing sums of money. Although there was great talk about how they should step back, and about the ways in which they were going to help them, that was, by and large, not the case. They pursue them right to the bitter end on the basis that that money is going into their profits. When we hear that an individual—who I shall not name —who heads up one particular gambling company was able to give themselves a bonus of £1 billion over three years, we must ask: what is the price of human life? Is it only about profit? In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen and hon. Members in the Chamber. The sooner we get these measures on the statute book, the better. There is room for improvement in what the Government are proposing, but I wish them well on that, and I will certainly be supporting them.

Order. I now impose a formal time limit of two minutes and 30 seconds.

14:55:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow two such accomplished speeches. There is real intelligence on both sides of this House in terms of where we need to go now with gambling legislation. Most Members will know that I have worked over a number of years on the issue of alcohol and drug addiction treatment, and I share similar concerns about addiction in gambling. As you know, Mr Turner, I also have a passion for horseracing, and I will give a bit of context to bring the two together. We can all agree that the incessant advertising of gambling, in particular of online casinos and the most harmful forms of gambling, is destructive. I do not see why we should stand for that any longer. There is a second levy that is important in this debate. Fixed-odds betting goes back to about the 1960s. Horseracing—which I consider to be a great British sport that I wish to support, and is an industry that employs many people and livelihoods—is reliant on a levy from the bookmakers to the horseracing industry. That levy is applied only to bets that are placed on horseracing. There is therefore no risk to racing in dealing with the most harmful forms of gambling in this country. In fact, there can be a benefit to the horseracing industry if this House gets the legislation and the regulation right. We can reduce the most harmful forms of gambling and encourage forms such as taking a flutter on a bet or a Yankee on a Saturday—as we have done for many generations in this country. We can redraw the landscape of betting and gaming in the United Kingdom for the benefit of real-life sports and entertainment, away from the online casinos and the most addictive forms of gambling. Through the levy that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) talked about, I hope that we can also make sure that more money goes into addiction treatment and support for those who are so tragically harmed and who, in some of the worst cases, lose their lives to this pernicious habit.

14:57:00

First, I wish you well in chairing Westminster Hall, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for raising the issue. In the last Parliament, I was a vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm, so there can be no doubt where I stand. I commend the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is not here today, for all her work over the years to address gambling. Those of us who know her—she is still in Parliament, by the way—will know that she has done great work. The scale of harm in Great Britain is far more concerning than previously thought, with 2.5% of the population, nearly 1.3 million people, experiencing the most severe gambling harms. My comment for the Minister’s ears—and for everyone else; but she will direct it—is to ask whether she would discuss that issue with the Northern Ireland Assembly. The rate of gambling addiction in Northern Ireland is 2.3%, which is above the normal rate in Britain. Colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly held a debate on this subject at the end of January and they put forward a number of issues. Paul Frew MLA highlighted: “Some 80% of all gambling marketing activity is now on the internet.” That is where the grey area is and where we need to address the issue. He further said: “While online gambling operators licensed by the Gambling Commission can freely advertise in Northern Ireland, because online and broadcast advertising is a reserved matter, our population is afforded no protection by the regulator in GB”. Will the Minister look at that? In the last 12 months, 30% of 11 to 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland have gambled in one form or another. It is clear that the measures in place are not protecting our children from harm. The worst time is from midnight to 4 am. That is another issue we need to address. There is a need for greater regulation on the mainland and in Northern Ireland; we are simply crying out for any updated regulation and legislation to deal with the scourge of gambling. I have young men coming into my office with their mothers owing money left, right and centre to paramilitaries—that is one of our problems back home—and there are nearly always two reasons for that: drugs and gambling. We need to do something, particularly for people in areas of social deprivation who are looking for a way out and taking a chance on gambling, which only digs a deeper hole for them to try to get out of. That has to stop. In this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, let us do the job together.

15:00:00

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate and give my condolences to the family of Jack, who are here today. Brent has the second highest concentration of gambling premises in London, and it does not make our high street better; it makes it considerably worse. Gambling facilities are more accessible than supermarkets, banks or schools in my constituency. Some 6.2% of Brent residents are categorised as problem gamblers, more than the national average of just 2.9%. Gambling-related harms in Brent cost an estimated £14.3 million annually. Now, with free wi-fi and often free drinks for young people, betting shops are trying to encourage a younger generation, and I can only see that figure getting worse. These products are addictive, and we need to call them out. Gambling is more addictive than heroin or tobacco. If this was anything else, we would be saying, “What do we do to change this?” It is bringing such harm to communities. Yes, people have the right to gamble—to have a flutter—but serious harms are being caused. We need to strengthen the licensing power. We have heard powerfully today that the legislation is not equipped to handle what is going on, both online and on our high streets. I want councils to have more of an opportunity to say no to new gambling establishments; I want my constituents’ voices to be heard when they say no to further gambling establishments. We have two gambling shops with just one other shop in between. How is that necessary? It is absolutely time for us to say that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. If we are serious about growth and regenerating our high streets, we need to start closing down betting shops and definitely not open new ones, and we also need to strengthen the laws on online gambling.

15:02:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this important debate. Tewkesbury is home to the prestigious and internationally famed Cheltenham racecourse, which is one of the largest in the UK. Every year, more than 250,000 people visit the racecourse across four days of racing at Cheltenham festival, and many enjoy betting on the results. A 2023 study conducted by the University of Gloucestershire found that the economic benefit of Cheltenham festival was an estimated £274 million. I consider myself a horseracing sceptic, but, as the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham racecourse, I must take a nuanced position. That £274 million is an astonishing figure, and I value that contribution. We must also consider the associated financial harms and the mental and physical health impacts of gambling on the UK economy, which cost £1.4 billion per year. I am also acutely aware that problem gambling is a serious public health issue. I proudly submitted the Liberal Democrats’ contribution to the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 just last week, supporting financial caps on bets made online. Public Health England reports that approximately 246,000 people are problem gamblers in England alone, and a further 2.2 million people are at risk. Shockingly, it further reports that there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides per year. My constituents deserve a Member of Parliament who puts their wellbeing ahead of the interests of private betting companies, while recognising the economic and social contribution of the industry. My residents deserve to be protected from exploitation by betting companies, which cannot be trusted, much less expected, to self-regulate. Our residents do not need another round of public consultations; they need action. I want to see significant restrictions on gambling advertising, including but not limited to that which plagues young people’s social media feeds and YouTube videos. Gambling firms are at pains to present their industry as symbiotic with sport, deliberately placing their adverts around football broadcasts, stadiums and shirts.

One particular gambling company says to people that when the fun stops, the betting should stop. Does the hon. Member agree that when the fun stops, it is far too late?

I absolutely agree, but we should not leave it to gambling companies to make that statement. We should instead take action. Gambling is not symbiotic with sport, and the companies should not be allowed to indoctrinate children, whose parents, like me, just want to introduce them to the beautiful game. We no longer allow fast food companies to align themselves with sport, and we should treat gambling companies in precisely the same way.

15:06:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. One in 15 residents in Greater Manchester faces gambling harms—that is one and a half times the national average—and recent research reveals that the Wigan borough has the highest referral rate to specialist gambling services in the region. We have heard the most poignant contributions about how such harms can include financial stress, relationship breakdown, mental health struggles and, tragically, even suicide. The impacts are therefore not limited to the individuals who gamble; for every person at risk, an average of six others are affected—family, friends and colleagues. Although gambling may not always be the sole cause of such harms, it often deepens existing vulnerabilities. The path to recovery can be long and difficult, but recovery is possible, and that is what I want to focus on. One constituent of mine, David Smith, has a powerful story of his addiction and recovery. For 37 years, David’s life was controlled by gambling. He describes how it ruined his life: it made him a “walking nuisance”—his words—and ultimately led him to “hit rock bottom”. It was the moment that he maxed out five credit cards in one afternoon that led David to bravely seek help from Gamblers Anonymous. Later, he joined GaMHive, an incredible organisation in Greater Manchester founded by individuals who have personal experience of gambling harm. They and their families have been affected by addiction and, through their collective lived experience, they are working to break the stigma. I do not have time in this short contribution to go through the story of how gambling has affected David’s life. All Members will have heard constituents’ powerful stories. I have seen David bring his audience to tears with the story that he has to tell. That is why these groups are so important. We have heard from other hon. Members that money from the public levy could be used for prevention, which is obviously key, but it could also support groups such as GaMHive.

I call Chris Evans.

15:08:00

Thank you, Mr Turner. It seems funny to call you Mr Turner—we have been friends for so long—but I congratulate you on your elevation to the Panel of Chairs. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this very important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), I add my condolences to Jack’s family, who are in the Public Gallery. I come from a bookmaking family: my parents were bookmakers and my grandparents were bookmakers. I have always defended the industry, because I have always believed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), in the horseracing levy—as someone who loves horses, I have always been attracted by the investment in equine science—but there comes a point when we cannot defend the indefensible any more. We have gone too far. I bought the newspaper on Sunday. My son, like millions of boys and girls across the country, loves Erling Haaland. There was a picture of him on the front page of the paper, and next to it was advertised a free £3 bet. I do not want my son’s love of football linked to betting. I should declare an interest as administrative steward for the British Boxing Board of Control. Gambling is no longer just gambling; it is embedded in the sports programmes that we see everywhere. When I drive home from London, I like to listen to the match on talkSPORT, and it cuts over to a betting expert to tell people the latest odds. At the end of each round of a boxing match, they improve the odds on what they are doing. When I was in the betting shop, there was a limit on football betting. No one could bet on singles, doubles and trebles, only an accumulator. It was not possible to bet in game as can be done now. I do not believe the Labour Government brought about the Gambling Act 2005 envisaging smartphones. That legislation did not envisage the examples we have talked about today—but they need to stop. I see nothing wrong with betting shops being open the way they are—they were once sleazy places, but they do support the industry—but I believe we have gone too far with advertising. Gambling has taken the space of tobacco companies. Mr Turner, you are more or less my age; you will remember the Embassy darts championship and the Embassy snooker championship. You will remember the John Player Special Formula 1 cars on a Sunday afternoon. The livery of the McLaren cars was the same as a packet of Marlboro cigarettes. When we see Stake going round the circuit, it is the same thing. I really think we need a regulator with real teeth that can shut these companies down, and a change in the law. I hope that when the Minister stands up, he will talk—

Order.

15:11:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this debate on an issue that matters deeply to many of my constituents, and I thank him for the experiences he shared in his opening contribution. I felt compelled to come along today following a recent advice surgery I held in my constituency. I met my constituent Margaret, who bravely shared the impact of gambling on her life and, more specifically, her son’s. Tragically, Margaret’s son took his own life because of the impact of his gambling addiction. Margaret never knew that her son was an addict; she learned of it only following his sudden death, when she reviewed bank statements and discovered how debt had piled up, ultimately becoming too much for him. I think that speaks to how gambling impacts people. What is at first an occasional trip to the bookies becomes something uncontrollable and all-consuming. People suffer in silence, hiding their addiction from their families as the debt grows and the shame deepens. There will be countless people battling this addiction in silence in our communities. The responsibility to intervene and prevent harm cannot only be for individuals and their families. Gambling operators must do more. Operators should identify unusual patterns, monitor online activity and recognise regular customers, acting early to prevent debt from spiralling.

My hon. Friend is making a wonderful contribution. GamCare has found that there has been exponential growth in online gambling. More than half its callers struggle with online gambling and 60% said online slots were the main problem. We just heard about many people struggling with debt and the affordability of gambling. Does my hon. Friend think that, with the amount of data online gambling companies have, we should pursue affordability checks, so that nobody can gamble more than they can afford?

I agree that that should be looked at. Margaret’s story is heartbreaking but, through her grief, she is determined to act. I am proud to be working with her to bring a petition to this House. Margaret began the campaign before I was elected to this place, with my predecessor, David Linden, and I am pleased that the petition has already secured hundreds of signatures. Margaret’s call is for the Government to introduce tougher regulation and requirements for gambling operators and financial institutions. I am certain that Margaret will be encouraged by the action that the UK Government are already taking, with the announcement of a statutory levy on gambling operators. The money raised from that levy will be used to fund research, prevention and health programmes. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what further steps the Government intend to take to address the tragic harms caused by gambling, recognising the impact that such addiction has not just on the individual, but on the families who are too often left picking up the pieces.

15:14:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this important debate and for his insightful opening speech. I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time, so I will focus on a small number of points. In 2023, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities published its latest report on the economic and social cost of the harms associated with gambling. It identified that 1.76 million people participate in harmful gambling in England, of whom 168,000 are classified as experiencing problem gambling. Those figures are enormous. GambleAware estimates that in Dartford, the community I am privileged to represent in this place, one in 33 people have a problem gambling severity index score of 8-plus. In layman’s terms, that means that they have experienced adverse consequences from gambling and may have lost control over their behaviour. Like other Labour Members, I was elected on a manifesto committing us to reducing gambling-related harm, and I very much welcome the progress that we are making. The statutory levy and slot stake limits are both impressive steps forward, but there are still a few areas in which I—and other Members, I am sure—have identified the need for Government action. First, as a football fan, I am pleased that the Premier League will ban front-of-shirt advertising by gambling companies from the summer of 2026, but anyone who regularly watches or attends matches will know that that is not enough. We need to go further and ban all shirt advertising, as well as perimeter advertising, and other sports need to follow that lead. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to reform how coroners look at the role of problem gambling, because many bereaved families have felt that problems with gambling were simply excluded from consideration. I support calls for the Government to look at how they might reform the coroner service to ensure that the causes of preventable deaths, such as those linked with gambling, are properly examined and addressed to prevent future deaths. Importantly, the evidence submitted by families must be properly interrogated. I pay tribute to all organisations involved in reducing gambling harm, but particularly Gambling with Lives, which has put families bereaved by gambling suicide at the heart of its work.

15:17:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this important debate. When I first became involved in this issue, the huge focus was on reducing the harm from FOBTs, and on the fact that people were losing hundreds if not thousands of pounds in a matter of minutes. That battle was won, but less than 10 years on it feels as though we are living in a different world. So many bets are placed on phones at all hours, encouraged by push notifications, email marketing and free bets. We have to do more to ensure that the regulation keeps up with reality. I want to focus on two things: how to make online gambling safer and what should happen in the event of a tragic suicide. Almost three quarters of callers to the national gambling helpline said that they had struggled with online gambling. Last week, a High Court judge found that a well-known gambling firm sent a problem gambler more than 1,300 marketing emails, despite rules stating that companies should not advertise to high-risk users. In a world in which the data that companies hold on each individual is so granular, I do not believe that they are doing anywhere near what they could to detect patterns of problem gambling and meaningfully intervene. The High Court ruling makes a link between customer protection and the suppression of marketing, yet the previous Government told us that there is no causal link between marketing and harm. I ask the Minister whether the Department will look again at the issue in the light of the ruling. What further safeguards could be put in place to protect vulnerable and at-risk players from marketing? Gambling addiction is hard to talk about. Many people’s gambling habits are a source of shame, which pushes the issue further into the dark. I met Liz and Charles —who is in the Public Gallery today—a long time ago. They have been powerful campaigners for families affected by suicide. Their charity is calling for an independent investigation into every gambling suicide so that lessons can be learned and fed into regulation and improved public information. Unfortunately, too many families who have lost loved ones through addiction tell stories of how hard it is to get information from the gambling companies. Will the Minister work with the Ministry of Justice to look at what happens when a death has occurred and at how licensing conditions can encourage operators to be more transparent? For many people, including me, gambling means an occasional each-way bet on the grand national or buying a scratchcard, but there are 168,000 people in the west midlands who say that problem gambling is devastatingly affecting their lives. For them and for their families, we need to do more.

15:19:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this debate. I can be brief, because many of my points have already been made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), who mentioned her constituent Margaret, I have been an MP for only seven months. In this job we meet people who are going through difficult times, but I will never forget my meeting with my constituents Judith Bruney and her friend Liz. They came to my office in Dinnington to tell me about their sons, both of whom were hard-working, honourable, good young men trying to make their way in the world, but both of whom took their own life far too young as a result of their addiction to gambling. Chris, Judith’s son, was talented and hard-working but, without any of his close family knowing, he went spiralling into the depths of a gambling problem that in the end meant that he took his own life. I want to stress the point, which my hon. Friend has already made, that the trauma for the families did not end at that point. Afterwards, both Liz and Judith had to keep fighting for answers about how this happened and why this happened against an industry, and frankly a system, that too often closes doors, shuts down and does not look into the very important issues affecting hundreds or thousands of people every year. I urge the Government and the Minister to work with the Ministry of Justice in particular to look at ways in which we can empower coroners’ courts, and indeed place responsibilities on them, to look into these issues in a robust and rigorous manner. At the moment, we simply do not know the scale of the problem. We have heard a lot of statistics in this debate, but they vary because we just do not know what we are dealing with. Until we do, we cannot properly solve it.

15:21:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this debate. It is vital that we have this discussion, and I hope that it will lead to some change. A few weeks ago, I was visited by my constituent Lesley Wade, whose son, as we have heard, killed himself after engaging with online gambling for an extended period. We have already heard how awful that was, but what really stood out for me in the story that Lesley told me was how insidious it was and how no one around him knew what he was going through or the stresses that he was under. Although the psychology and biology underlying a lot of gambling addiction are the same as for hard drugs or alcohol, the visual signs are often not there, so families are not seeing the deterioration in people as they go through this trauma or the warning signs that could lead them to step in. Aaron, Lesley’s son, was gambling at work, in the pub and in his bedroom. No one knew about it, largely because the online gambling industry is using techniques designed to get into people’s brain and mess up their brain chemistry. I believe that that is entirely intentional and entirely known by these companies. We are not dealing with a situation in which these companies are just maximising their product and innovating in a harm-free way. I am certain that this is a real harm. I am also certain that this is a public health emergency, which is why I am very keen to see public health take a lead. The DCMS has a role to play, but I do not think that it should be the lead Department on handling gambling harms and managing the risk. It is important that we look at how the health system is responding, not just with treatment but with identification and data. Changing the way coroners operate would really help. As a counter to what some Members have said about other areas of the gambling industry, I speak as someone with seaside towns and resorts in my constituency. We have great beaches, but also lots of amusement arcades. When I speak to the people running those arcades, what really stands out is that they are very concerned about the wild west that is online gambling. They would like to see change.

One concern that many of us have is about the way gambling companies very often get planning permission for casinos on high streets across this great nation. That happened in my town of Newtownards: even with all the opposition, the planning rules still let it happen. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern?

I do not believe that a prohibition on gambling is the right approach—we can see how that would fail—but I believe that it should be a managed problem. It is a very high-risk area, and we need to look comprehensively at how gambling is organised, legislated for and regulated in this country. We should look at everything. It is time to review the legislation. First and foremost, I want this to be seen through a public health lens.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:25:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate. As the MP for Cheltenham, I am no stranger to gambling, and as a liberal I believe in holding power to account. That includes powerful and predatory gambling companies. As hon. Members have said, it is important at the outset of the debate to separate the vast majority of gambling on jump racing and harmless flutters—mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place—from the pernicious practices that are commonplace in the gambling industry. They are up in our grill 24/7, 365 days a year. Where once sports betting was done in the relatively sterile environment of betting shops, markets can now be accessed 24/7 from the comfort—or, in many cases, the extreme discomfort—of someone’s own home. A few thumb presses on a screen at 3 am is all it takes to lay a bet on a Peruvian second division football game they have never heard of, an obscure tennis match in the far east among players they have never heard of, or an amateur Australian basketball match. If that is not their bag, they might register for online games such as bingo, roulette or slots. That convenient 24/7 availability is advertised to us forcefully by people with limitless pots of money. It is on the front of football shirts until 2026 and on every touchline. It is in every advert break during football matches, with the pundits commentating on that day’s game often encouraging us to get involved in the fun. The splicing of journalism and commentary with advertising should give us all pause for thought. If I might say so, without naming anyone in particular, those pundits should think hard about the difficulties created by their dual role as commentators and advocates for the betting industry. That is not an acceptable way for public figures to behave.

On people appearing to be one thing and actually being something else, does the hon. Member agree that 100% of the gambling levy should be given to independent bodies that are answerable to Ministers and Parliament, not to charities backed by gambling companies?

Absolutely. There is a role for a separate levy as well, which I will come to later, to support the horseracing industry, which needs to be viewed separately from the rest of this, as I said. The Government must also think about the broadcasters who screen games and run their own associated betting operations, because the gap between the scenarios portrayed in gambling adverts and the reality is nothing short of sinister. In gambling adverts, people are having a great time in the pub with their mates. They are in fun scenarios, playing roulette, wearing sharp suits or sparkly dresses, with dancing and jolly times being had by all. In reality, such gambling is, in the main, far from a social occasion. It is undertaken mostly by people who are addicted to gambling apps, losing money at home alone, often desperate and with nobody to talk to.

I have in front of me a press release from Entain, which announces that Liverpool has become Ladbrokes’ official betting partner. It says: “The partnership will provide Ladbrokes with a range of exclusive content opportunities and activations to reward and entertain customers and fans”. What does the hon. Member think those rewards and entertainment will be?

In most cases, a financial loss to the individual who takes part. These people are unable to talk to their friends and family about the losses and their addiction. They are unable to seek help, despite the repeated suggestions from gambling companies that when the fun stops, people should stop gambling. The gambling companies know what we in the Chamber know: addicts cannot stop. They are not able to, no matter how many times they see a gentle nudge on a fun advert on the television. It is estimated that 48% of people in the UK regularly gamble and that the gambling market is now worth about £15 billion. But, as has been said, that is revenue, and then there is other revenue. We must be clear about where the revenue is coming from. Receipts from April to September last year total more than £1.7 billion, a 6% increase on the previous year. A study by the University of Liverpool found that over 290,000 betting accounts experience losses of over £2,000 each year. This leads directly to loss of life. Public Health England estimates that there are 400 gambling-related suicides every year: more than one a day. Every single death is a tragedy. Despite this worrying picture, regulatory action has been slow and has lagged behind the technology, the pervasive level of advertising and changing consumer habits.

Does the hon. Member agree that we cannot allow the sector to regulate itself? If allowed to, its members will do what benefits them and ensure they prioritise profit, not the needs of vulnerable users.

Of course. I started by talking about the need for liberals to hold power to account. That goes for Liberal Democrats and small-l liberals, and there are many small-l liberals in the room, I am sure. We know that power does not hold itself to account. Those in positions of power, where they have the power to literally print money, will not regulate themselves. That is obvious to everyone—and, I am sure, to the Minister too. As I said, despite the worrying picture, regulatory action has been slow. Since the Gambling Act 2005, we have seen action on fixed-odds betting terminals and bans on credit card gambling to reduce harm. That is to be welcomed. The 2023 White Paper on gambling sought to modernise regulations, and the new Government increased the gambling levy. That is also welcome, but more action is urgently needed. The Liberal Democrats believe that the remote gaming duty should be raised from 21% to 42% to provide more funding for initiatives to tackle problem gambling. It is also clear that to tackle problem gambling we need more restrictions on the bombardment of gambling advertising on all of our screens. A new ombudsman must be set up to provide redress for people wronged by gambling companies, who are the victims in this discussion. Effective affordability checks must be put in place, and we must start treating gambling addiction as a public health problem. It is simply not good enough to continue under the pretence that this form of addiction does not require the sort of help and therapy provided to the sufferers of other addictions. It makes no sense. Those asks must be funded by duties on the industry, not taxpayers. The gambling industry reportedly costs the economy a net £1.4 billion per year. Organisations like GambleAware and others mentioned today have carried out important work in this sector. That should be commended. While making these changes, which are all about the stick, it is important that the heritage asset that is our horseracing sector, which I represent in Cheltenham, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), must be given a carrot too. Our racecourses must be placed on a level playing field with their international competitors, and I know that Ministers are looking at this. We have previously discussed in this room reforms to the gambling levy to better provide support for our domestic racecourses. Could the Minister update us on her discussions on that? That is not the main point of this debate today, as I have been very clear. In conclusion, action to prevent harm to problem gamblers is long overdue. The sector requires widespread reform so that the bombardment of gambling adverts luring people into 24/7 betting cycles is ended. We cannot continue to ignore this problem that is costing our economy, splitting families and causing so much unnecessary suffering.

15:33:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing a debate on this important and sensitive issue. As we have heard, betting and gaming are key economic contributors. Last year Ernst & Young reported that the industry supported more than 100,000 jobs, generated over £4 billion in tax revenue and contributed close to £7 billion to the wider economy. Across all forms of gambling, more than 22.5 million adults in Britain enjoy a flutter every single month and generate almost £11 billion in gross gambling yield every year. The vast majority of this is done safely, supported by measures enacted by regulated operators and enforced by the Gambling Commission. However, there are a number of people who have suffered harm because of gambling, whether that is financial harm or, in tragic cases, suicide, which we have heard about today. My heart goes out to all the families impacted. We must continue to take this seriously and provide the best support we can. For example, the current voluntary system funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers. We are fortunate in the United Kingdom that rates of problem gambling are relatively low compared with European countries. Greece has a problem gambling rate of 2.7%. France has a rate of 2.9%, and the Czech Republic has a rate of 4.5%. The United Kingdom’s problem gambling rate almost halved from 2016 to 2023 and now sits at 0.4%, according to the gold-standard NHS health survey. We would all like to see the rate become 0%, which is why the sector already contributes and why we must get the balance right in this area of legislation. Over the last four years, the sector has contributed more than £170 million to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm, with more than £50 million volunteered in the last year alone. That money funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers, which cares for approximately 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain. However, that work is now being put into doubt by the Government. The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025, which the Minister and I debated, among other colleagues, in a delegated legislation Committee last week, risk the much-needed funding stopping in the short term, as the transition to a new statutory levy takes place. The new regulations will lead to a double levy this year, with the voluntary levy still in place and the statutory levy taxing gross gambling yield backdated to April last year. Not only that, but this first levy period is being charged at 133% of the rate for subsequent years. Even those with the purest intentions, including those providing the current prevention and treatment programmes, are aware of the enormous damage that could do. There are clear risks of a gap in funding from the ending of the voluntary levy in April to the first collection of the statutory levy in October. As businesses, the sector will have to take decisions to survive Labour’s tax rises, which could include minimising voluntary payments to the current minimum of just £1 for this year. I raised that issue in our debate last week, but the Minister did not give me or the sector an answer, and I wonder whether she will answer this vital question today. How will prevention and treatment programmes be funded when the voluntary funding is minimised but the statutory levy is yet to be collected or distributed? The sector was broadly supportive of the statutory levy proposed under the previous Government, but the way in which it has been introduced, with higher rates than those the Department previously discussed with the sector, means that both gambling businesses and treatment charities are deeply concerned about the outcomes and unintended consequences. Will the Minister tell us today how many people she thinks will lose out on vital treatment in that time? I know she is not the Minister for Gambling, but she is accountable for gambling to us in the Commons. As I set out last week, there are many there are many concerns across the sector about the lack of engagement coming forward. Over the several months in which I have asked questions, I have yet to receive any response from either the Minister or the Minister for Gambling in the other place. Why are the Government leaving the betting and gaming sector in the dark? Will the Minister finally give us the answers that we have been waiting so patiently for? What about GambleAware, which has stated that it needs the confirmation of its funding for the period to April 2026, when the new system will be fully in place? I am sure that it has also told the Department about this, but it is becoming increasingly urgent as it is uncertain about how it commissions services going forward, including commissioning via the crucial national gambling support network, which helps fund many of those charities that I have already highlighted across the sector. GambleAware needs clarity. Not only are the Government consciously leaving the prevention and treatment of gambling harm in a state of uncertainty, but the higher rates of the levy now to be charged will also have further implications. The higher costs on companies will lead to business closures and job losses, particularly among smaller firms, as well as a reduction in tax revenue for His Majesty’s Treasury, and they will have a knock-on effect of up to £60 million in business rates that are currently flowing to local authorities. That, in turn, will have a dual impact. First, it will likely increase participation rates in the black market, where no regulations or safeguards apply, and no levy revenue will be generated. As Members will know, black markets are created when gambling customers cannot access products or, more pertinently, find those products highly restricted in their domestically regulated market. No amount of anti-black market measures will prevent a black market from forming if customers cannot gamble enjoyably with limited frictions. Here in the United Kingdom, we have historically enjoyed a relatively low level of black market participation, but there is clear evidence that this is a growing risk and there are clear reasons why, including price frictions in bonuses and free bets, as well as other financial limits, such as affordability checks, not being enforced properly. We are reaching a tipping point of the Government’s own making—a point at which those most at risk from gambling harm will be unable to wean themselves off gambling in a responsible and monitored way. Instead, they will turn to illicit bookies and international websites to meet their needs. A report by Regulus Partners confirms this, stating: “On the current pattern of increasing consumer friction in the domestically regulated market… international experience shows Britain’s illegal gambling leakage could more than double.” If that happens, the most at risk will be furthest from the help that they desperately need. It will also continue to damage British horseracing, as mentioned by other Members. There is a middle ground in allowing players to engage with betting and gaming safely, with plenty of warnings and signposting to the help they can receive. If we push the cost of safe and legal betting to such a height that participants choose to exit the market in favour of cheaper prices and better odds in the unregulated market, it would undermine efforts to make gambling safer and would force more players and more money into unregulated providers who do not need to comply with regulations around safer play. I asked the Minister several questions last week, and I will ask them again to see whether she has had time to confer with her colleagues. First, who in Government will be setting the strategic direction, and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in her Department, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury? Secondly, how will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy, and how will the Government ensure all views are heard rather than just those of vested interests? Will the Government ensure that charities currently being funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not be given a carte blanche, which I know will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account? I want to place on the record my thanks to the many amazing charities, such as Gordon Moody, Deal Me Out and others, representative of which are in the Gallery. They continue to do fantastic work to help people turn their lives around, and they are at the forefront of helping those who suffer the harmful effects of gambling. They should be the ones we keep in our minds throughout these discussions, as we try to strike an appropriate balance that ensures safe gambling across the country. Will the Minister reassure those watching from the Gallery and from afar that she will make sure that her ministerial colleagues meet them, listen to them and put in practice their expertise in this field? They know what they are talking about. Do the Government?

Before I call the Minister, I remind her that I would like very much to allow Alex Ballinger two minutes to wind up at the end.

15:41:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate you on your elevated position, and I will heed your comments on the time. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate on gambling harm. It is a real pleasure to welcome him in leading what I believe is his first Westminster Hall debate. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I took part in a charity bet last April. My hon. Friend spoke movingly, as did Members from across the House, about those who have suffered from gambling-related harm and suicide and those who have sadly lost their lives. I extend my sympathies and those of the Government to all those who are affected by these issues.

Organisations such as Gordon Moody in my constituency provide essential and invaluable residential treatment for individuals suffering from severe gambling addiction, as well as mental health services and advice about how to detangle addiction. How are the Government supporting those organisations in their efforts to prevent gambling-related suicide, and does the Minister agree that an expansion of Government-backed rehabilitation services, especially those focused on children, is essential?

I have seen at first hand the impact of gambling-related harms. As shadow Minister for gambling, I spoke to individuals and families who have been directly impacted by such harm. I visited a Gordon Moody treatment centre, which I believe is in her constituency, spoke to families in Parliament and hosted roundtables with the prevention sector. The Minister for Gambling regularly engages with those who have lived experience of gambling harm. Today, I will set out the Government’s position on gambling-related harm and the important action we are taking to reduce it. This debate is framed by the 2023 Gambling White Paper. Published by the last Government, it laid the foundations for once in a generation gambling reform. We are working with the industry to modernise regulation, as well as to implement meaningful changes to protect people from gambling-related harm. Before I do that, I will respond to points made during the debate. If I do not cover them all now, I will during the course of my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and others asked when the statutory levy would be reviewed. That will happen within five years. Affordability checks are being piloted. The voluntary ombudsman was in the White Paper and the Minister for Gambling will update shortly. I would argue that the Government are acting to protect people from harm, implementing the White Paper and fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reduce harm. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised a really important question about Northern Ireland. I am always keen to meet my counterparts. I would be very pleased to write to him, and the DCMS stands ready to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to strengthen regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) raised the important issue of horseracing, of which he is a strong champion, as did the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and others. I will relay their points to the Minister for Gambling. The Government’s position is that the horseracing and gambling industries should get round the table and come to a voluntary deal. I will briefly respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who said that the levy was in jeopardy. I say gently to him that the only thing putting it in jeopardy is him voting against it, as he did last week, which is rather curious given that it was his Conservative Government that published the measure.

The Minister will be well aware that the reason that we voted against the levy was not the principle of it—as she just acknowledged, it was designed by the previous Government—but how it has been changed by the new Government and the risks that I outlined in both my questions today.

I will come on to answer some of those points, but in the interests of time, I will endeavour to get the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member with a full response. The shadow Minister also asked about operators paying more in the first year. That is simply not correct. The levy is charged at a flat rate based on previous years’ profits. We believe that is the fairest and most sustainable way forward. Operators’ first levy payment will be based on profits reported to the Gambling Commission via regulatory returns. The commission changed the returns process for non-lottery licences last July. As such, operators’ first levy payment is based on three quarters’ worth of data multiplied by 1.33 to get the full year. On the assessment the Government have made about anyone losing out on treatment in the transition period, we are clear that operators must maintain the level of contributions to the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that it has the funding it needs. We have received reassurances from the industry that that will happen. As I have just said, I or the Minister for Gambling will write to the shadow Minister. In the interests of time, I will move on to make some progress on the question before us. We know that the vast majority of people who gamble do so safely—indeed, half of adults gamble each month. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) spoke about the contribution the industry makes economically and in terms of jobs, and I will not repeat those comments. However, 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing problem gambling. It is clear from today’s debate that many of us share the commitment to do more to protect people who are suffering that harm, especially given the significant changes that we have seen in the sector in recent years. In that context, the Government are committed to taking forward White Paper measures such as new protections on marketing and bonuses, financial risk checks to prevent unaffordable gambling, and allowing consumers to seek redress from gambling operators via an ombudsman, which has been discussed today. We will continue to work with the industry, the third sector and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the reforms are proportionate, targeted and effective.

Reflecting some of the points made early on in the debate, will the Department look at lotteries, pools and sports betting differently from addictive online forms of gambling, which we know are some of the most harmful? There is an opportunity to shape how gambling goes forward in this country.

I will be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. He knows that the levy is proportionate to the type of product, so it is different for different products, but I or the Minister for Gambling will be happy to discuss it with him. The work on reform has already begun, with regulations on stake limits for online slots and a statutory gambling levy, which was debated last week and has been discussed today. I am pleased to report that the House approved both those statutory instruments, and they will be considered in the other place next week. I will talk briefly about the first of those statutory instruments, on stake limits for online slots, which provides an important and proportionate intervention aimed at better protecting those who are most at risk of gambling-related harm. Online slots are the highest-risk and fastest-growing gambling product, but 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. The limit builds on previous protections introduced by the Gambling Commission. The new regulation introduces statutory maximum stake limits in 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. Those limits will bolster existing safer game design requirements to ensure that online slots games are safer to play than ever. I have heard what some Members have said about £5 being too high. The average stake in online slots is 60p, and the evidence shows that people staking high amounts are more likely to be experiencing gambling harm. The £5 stake limit is a targeted intervention to protect those who are most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses.

I am not quite sure how the logic works on that. We introduced a £2 limit in the betting shops, but for some reason we have introduced a higher limit where we think the harms are greatest. Which one is wrong?

I had made a note of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I was just coming on to address some of the points he made, although he may not agree with my response. Before I do so, I pay tribute to the work he has done. He is an experienced Member on this issue and was instrumental in forming the White Paper. Play on land-based gaming machines is often anonymous. Online gambling is more accessible to many, and there are extra protections that can be afforded to account-based online play, such as monitoring data for signs of harm, safer gambling checks and checks for financial risks. None the less, I will relay the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Minister for Gambling. The Government are also introducing for the first time a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. The levy represents a watershed moment and a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area, along with greater Government oversight and a renewed commitment to better understanding, tackling and treating gambling harms. The statutory levy will be charged to all licensed gambling operators, replacing and building on the successes of the current system, which is based on voluntary donations. The existing system for support and treatment would not have been possible without the financial support of the industry, but the time is now right to improve and expand the system, and to put funding on a more sustainable footing and trust in the system beyond doubt. We have designed the levy to be charged in a way that recognises the higher levels of harm associated with some online products and the higher operating costs in the land-based sector. It will guarantee that all operators pay their fair share while ensuring that any impacts are proportionate. We expect the levy to raise around £100 million every year for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. Twenty per cent. of the funding will be directed to research, which will be overseen by UK Research and Innovation to deliver a bespoke research programme on gambling; 30% will be allocated to developing a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention, and the remaining 50% will be allocated to treatment overseen by NHS England and the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales. A full treatment pathway, from referral and triage through to aftercare, will be commissioned. Not only will the levy deliver a significant uplift in investment in areas relating to research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm, but it will also provide robust Government oversight and mobilise world-leading expertise among our public bodies. Many Members are keen to know more about who will lead on prevention—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen asked this question. This is a very complex but important area, and we want to take the time needed to get it right. We are grateful for the funding provided by the gambling sector while the statutory levy was not in place, but we have taken note of Members’ desire to know what comes next and we intend to dedicate greater investment to prevention. I know the Minister for Gambling will announce her decision on prevention very soon. The levy represents the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction where people in our country are better protected from and aware of the risks of harmful gambling, and it has wide support across the sector. I acknowledge Members’ comments regarding gambling-related suicide. I am aware of the devastating impact that harmful gambling can have, including some instances of suicide. A single instance of this is one too many. We are absolutely committed to working across Government on this issue, as some Members have asked, including working with the Department of Health and Social Care as part of its work to take forward the suicide prevention strategy. We will continue to work with the Gambling Commission to develop the evidence base on gambling-related suicide through its gambling survey of Great Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and others spoke about the role of coroners. I recognise the important role that coroners play in assessing the facts behind instances of suicide. They are already required to make a report to a person or organisation where they think action could be taken to prevent future deaths. It is beyond the coroner’s power to investigate why a death occurred, and requiring coroners to do so would turn a fact-finding process into a subjective judgment, which would be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent. However, we will continue to explore possible options in this area, alongside introducing landmark reforms to prevent harm before it occurs and establish a comprehensive treatment system for those who need it. Many Members have raised the issue of advertising, and I acknowledge their concerns. Advertising can have a disproportionate impact on those who are already suffering from gambling-related harm, and we know that Members are particularly concerned about the potential impact on children and young people. Key sports bodies are raising standards in this area, and the gambling sponsorship codes of conduct brought in voluntarily by sporting bodies last year are a positive step forward. The Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors from the end of next season was also a welcome step. We will be monitoring these reforms to assess what impact they are having on the ground. I understand that gambling operators may feel that their own messaging and volume of ads are appropriate. The independent Advertising Standards Authority has existing robust rules in place to ensure that gambling adverts, wherever they appear, are socially responsible and that advertising is an advantage that regulated operators have over the unlicensed sector. However—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

In the interests of time, I will not give way. However, the question of “appropriate volume” needs to be looked at in aggregate, and thought about from the perspective of the public, especially children. We expect the industry to take the initiative on this by working across industry with sporting bodies and academics on harm prevention. In addition, the Government are eager to see improvements made to safer gambling messages. It is clear that industry ownership of safer gambling messages is not sustainable in the long term, and we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new approach to messaging. In the meantime, we expect the industry to make improvements in this space; we will be monitoring the impact of the sector’s work, and will step in if necessary. This Government are committed to protecting the most vulnerable in society from gambling harm. Together with the Gambling Commission, we have made good progress on implementing the measures in the gambling White Paper. We have taken action on online slots and the levy, and we will continue to implement other measures. I am grateful for the important contributions made by Members today. I thank them for sharing their stories, illustrating why the issue is so important, and for the constructive discussion. It is a pleasure to respond to the debate.

15:56:00

I start this winding-up speech by paying tribute to Liz and Charles from Gambling with Lives, who have done so much to support measures to protect people who are suffering from gambling harms, and have worked with so many Members across the House on this campaign for so many years. I thank them. Turning to the points raised by my colleagues, first, I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his long work on this campaign. It has been a pleasure to join his all-party parliamentary group, and I appreciate the work he has done on fixed-odds betting terminals. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for his long work on addiction. It was important and relevant to this debate, and I thank him for comparing gambling to other types of addiction. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising the absence of proper legislation in Northern Ireland on this issue. I am glad the Minister is looking into that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for talking about the proliferation of gambling shops in her constituency, and how they are concentrated in the areas with the most deprivation, which is a challenge that other Members have spoken about. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for talking about the benefits of horseracing in his constituency, and comparing that with the harms done by more damaging and challenging forms of online gambling. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for talking about the challenges in Greater Manchester, her constituent David Smith, and the example of the treatment he undertook; and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for talking very powerfully about the connection between gambling and sports. Many gambling commentators are, in my view, taking advantage of their position to push this harmful activity on people who are just there to enjoy a game of football. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) spoke about the challenges around debt, her constituents’ problems and the campaign she is pushing forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) talked about the economic and social costs of gambling. We have heard from the shadow Minister and others about the economic benefits, but there huge economic costs associated with the harms that we should reflect on. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) spoke about her campaign to make online gambling safer. We are neighbours; we agree on many of these issues and have similar challenges, and I agree with her that we should encourage the gambling industry to make the process more transparent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), who talked about his constituents Judith and Liz, and the very painful situation they have gone through. It is always so difficult to hear these stories, and I thank him for championing theirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) spoke about the challenges in coastal areas and about how there are different grades of harms from different types of gambling. Challenging and tackling more difficult online forms may sometimes be of benefit to the less dangerous forms that he has in his constituency. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) also talked about horseracing, but compared it with the difficult harms that people face, as well as the addiction to gambling apps and online gambling, which many of us see among younger people.

What does my hon. Friend think about online games that are not gambling, but in which, when someone loses a turn, they are immediately presented with something like an online app roulette wheel to win an extra game? Is that normalising gambling?

That is a concern. We might need another debate to talk about the effect of online games on children. I welcome the Minister’s comments and thank her for the work she has been doing on this issue, alongside the Minister for Gambling. More needs to be done. We need a stronger push on gambling marketing, sponsorship— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).