Peers for Gambling Reform

Peers for Gambling Reform (PGR) is pleased that the Government has finally come forward with proposals which reflect many of the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Economic and Social Impact of the Gambling Industry and the subsequent recommendations of PGR. 

The House of Lords Select Committee published its report ‘Time for Action’ in July 2020. Almost three years later and following intense lobbying, which has pushed for implementation of the Select Committee recommendations and the adoption of a “public health” approach, a milestone has now been achieved as the Government has set out critical reforms to: 

• Implement a statutory levy to ensure all gambling companies pay for research, prevention, education and the treatment of harms;
• Apply affordability checks to reduce the likelihood of people gambling more than they can afford;
• Introduce a stake limit on online gambling games and review of game design; and
• Strengthen gamblers’ means of redress through the introduction of an Ombudsman

Taken together these measures and others in the White Paper should lead to a significant reduction in gambling harm in the UK.

Are there any significant gaps in the Government’s reforms?

(a)    Advertising and Marketing

We are bombarded with the advertising and marketing activities of gambling companies who spend around £1.5 billion a year on such activities including direct, largely online, marketing, often with inducements such as a free bets, free spins, bonuses and VIP offers.

We welcome proposals to address inducements in direct marketing (including an opt out option)  and the voluntary ban on front of shirt sponsorship by Premiership Football teams. However, there is clear research showing that advertising leads to people starting to gamble, leads existing gamblers to gamble more and leads those who have stopped to start again. So, we believe the most significant gap in the White Paper is the lack of any further reforms to gambling advertising and marketing.

Without further action, we will continue to be bombarded with gambling adverts on TV, radio, billboards (including round sports grounds, in match day programmes and even on the shirt sleeves of premiership players) as well as online.

And we are particularly concerned about the impact that this has on children. Indeed, if we look at recently published data, we can see the scale of the impact on children.

• 45.2% of 11-17-year-olds and 72.4% of 18-24-year-olds said they see gambling advertising at least once per week on their social media feed
• A quarter of children (25.2%) and more than a third (37.3%) of young people reported seeing it daily
• Gambling accounted for 5% of all spending on radio advertisements during school-run hours, with about 1,200 hours of ads airing during 8am-9am and 3pm-4pm over the past 12 months

We believe further reforms are needed and suggest the following (including suggestions for ways in which lost sponsorship income could be replaced).

• Gambling advertising and sponsorship should be prohibited to the extent it was prior to 2007. As part of this, gambling operators should no longer be allowed to advertise on the shirts of sports teams (including esports teams) or any other part of their kit or team staff kit. Players and team managers should be banned from endorsing any gambling company or gambling activity. There should be no gambling advertising in or near any sports grounds or sports venues, including sports programmes – a proposal that is supported by over two thirds of adults according to recent Royal Society for Public Health polling. We accept that finding new sponsors for lower league football teams may take time which is why we propose a three-year phasing-in period for a ban for these teams.
• In recognition of the reliance of some sports on gambling revenue and for those sports such as horse racing and greyhound racing which few children watch or participate in, there could be carve-outs allowing these sports to continue to have gambling sponsors. These carve outs could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and the list of sports allowed to continue with gambling sponsorship could be kept under triennial review.
• Losses from gambling sponsorship could be off-set by offering sporting bodies “sports betting rights”, charging gambling companies a fee for the right to use sporting content and to offer bets on sporting competitions.
•  All personalised direct marketing and all forms of inducements to gamble should be prohibited. Gambling operators are now spending an ever-greater percentage of their advertising budget online and through direct online marketing to individual customers. As part of this, and in recognition of the powerful campaign being fought by Annie Ashton who lost her partner Luke last year, there should be an end to advertisements with offers of “free” bets to attract new customers, or better odds offered to new customers, more attractive odds offered for a brief period, or advertisements that create an inappropriate sense of urgency, such as those including “bet now” offers during live events. Such advertisements are hard to define or to list exhaustively, but they are easy to identify. Gambling operators may continue to offer support or information about their accounts to their individual customers. However,  in relation to information (excluding inducements) about services available, exactly the same information should be sent to all customers and there should be no “customisation” to seek to match a particular product with a particular customer

Other countries are taking action to ban or restrict gambling advertising. The majority of the British public want us to do the same. We believe more should be done in this country.

Absence of detail

We believe the White Paper has several “gaps” in terms of detail to inform up-coming consultations. For example, the White Paper acknowledges that online gamblers use accounts with several different companies, so why do the proposals consider only the “possibility” of a single, cross-company approach? We believe there should be a single, independently run system of affordability checks.

We strongly welcome the proposals for a statutory levy. However, the White Paper is silent on the detail. We advocate a smart levy, based on the polluter pays principle, so that those that cause the most harm pay the most.

And, in relation to the introduction of a smart levy, the White Paper is silent on how funding for research, education and treatment will continue during the transition from a voluntary to statutory system. And it’s equally silent on how the income from the new statutory levy should be distributed.

Our second concern is the sheer volume of consultations coming out of the White Paper. Government has had two years to review the substantial and clear evidence base to legislate.

Why therefore, do we need a further period of delay to assess and decide on policies the evidence already supports? Government needs to set out clearly how and why this process will be managed, and whether we’re looking yet again at another drawn out process that will inevitably cost lives.

What are the potential barriers to the Government and Gambling Commission delivering the White Paper’s main measures by summer 2024, the Government’s stated aim?

We are significantly concerned at a few potential impacts to reform delivery. Most importantly, however, we are concerned at the effect of barriers blocking effective change to gambling policy in this country before the next election.

Currently millions, of people are harmed by gambling either directly (including almost 60,000 11-16 year olds) or indirectly every year.  Tragically around 400 people a year commit suicide because of gambling problems.  The economic burden of harmful gambling is estimated to be £1.27bn yearly with 60% of online gambling industry profits coming from problem or at risk gamblers. Losses from online gambling are also greater in the most deprived areas – 20% of the poorest regions supply 25% of industry revenue.  

Given the scale of harm and the time it has taken to come forward with these proposals, the Government must swiftly move forward and implement these much-needed measures to bring our analogue legislation into the digital era and we will be working hard to ensure they do so.

On the topic of the question, we are primarily looking at three main barriers:

A)    Consultative Delay

The White Paper itself sets out multiple consultations looking at the detail of each area of proposed reform. Our Group’s view is that the evidence is already clear, and Government must have been persuaded of the merits of said reform to propose it, so why is there a need for months and years of further delay to decide on the specifics around certain measures. 

If the consultation timelines are anything like the White Paper publication timeline, thousands of lives are at risk of harm or being lost, before substantial reforms to the industry are made. We need Government to stick to the timelines it has set itself, and push through these consultations as a matter of priority. 

The consultation on the Statutory Levy must also not disrupt the flow of money collected on a voluntary basis until the Statutory Levy is introduced. The Government must ensure a continued flow of money for research, education and treatment.

B)     Industry Resistance 

Another effect of having a further consultation stage is the risk of the industry lobbying hard to water down reforms. We can be sure that there are a number of proposals in the White Paper the industry vehemently opposes, and so one can expect the industry to use this consultation period to put forward proposals that protect the status quo as much as possible. It is vital that Government follows the evidence base, listens to academics, clinicians and researchers and not the paid lobbyists of multinational online gambling companies.  

C)     Reform Resources

In order for any of the proposals put forward by Government to be implemented effectively, adequate resources must be urgently allocated to the Gambling Commission and other relevant regulatory bodies, such as the ASA, to effectively implement and enforce the proposed measures.

This includes recruiting and training additional staff, investing in technological infrastructure, and conducting research to inform evidence-based decision-making. Limited resources or competing demands for resources risk delaying the reform process significantly and this must be addressed as a matter of urgency.