The Labour government has been accused of deviating from the Gambling Review’s overarching objective to ensure that UK gambling is regulated in a “balanced manner for the safety of consumers”.
Yesterday, DCMS resumed its committee hearings on how the implementation of proposals from the Gambling Review’s white paper, published in April 2023, has been progressing.

Labour stands by 2024 settlements
DCMS Undersecretary, Stephanie Peacock, reviewed the 2024 developments led by the government, specifically the imposition of a £5 maximum stake on slot games for adults (25+) and a £2 stake limit for young adults aged 18–24, a measure designed to mitigate gambling-related harm.
Peacock defended the decision as a “much-needed protective measure” for the gambling industry’s highest-risk product. She further elaborated that the regulations align with data on problem gambling, particularly among younger players, and were developed to ensure “a proportionate response that protects consumers while sustaining the industry”.
However, the policy has faced significant criticism from the opposition, particularly from Shadow Minister Louie French, who accused the Labour government of failing to properly engage with industry stakeholders.
Conservatives: Labour has misunderstood policy objectives
French expressed concern that while player protection is necessary, the government’s approach is “rushed and poorly structured, creating economic risks”.

The Conservative minister criticised the government for expanding the scope of the new levy “beyond its original remit” and failing to consider the negative consequences for independent gambling businesses, bingo halls, and horse racing.
“Labour’s heavy-handed approach is endangering jobs, reducing revenues for good causes, and failing to properly consult stakeholders before implementing these drastic measures,” French stated during the hearing.
One of his key concerns was that smaller operators are now forced to pay a mandatory levy starting from a revenue threshold as low as £10 — a significant shift from the originally agreed £500,000 threshold. He argued that this move “punishes small businesses while favouring major gambling firms who can absorb the costs”.
DCMS was asked to explain why the government had stalled in implementing small revisions to gambling venues that would benefit retail businesses.
French highlighted that previously proposed modernisation measures for land-based casinos, including allowing more gaming machines and permitting sports betting, had been shelved without justification.
He argued that this delay hindered economic recovery for struggling retail operators, placing them at a disadvantage compared to their online counterparts.
“The government’s refusal to implement long-overdue revisions for gambling venues has left retail operators struggling to compete with their online counterparts,” French said at the committee hearing.
“The previously proposed modernisation measures, including permitting more gaming machines and allowing sports betting in land-based casinos, have been shelved without justification.
“This delay is hindering economic recovery for brick-and-mortar establishments and exacerbating the challenges they already face.”
Reformists: levy and slots limits require immediate review
Labour has positioned the mandatory levy on Research, Education, and Treatment (RET) as a transformative duty for the sector. Starting in April 2025, all licensed operators will be required to contribute annually to the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC). Operators who fail to comply risk losing their licences.
Despite Labour’s framing of the levy as a “progressive and fair” funding mechanism, it has been met with resistance from both pro-gambling and anti-gambling advocates.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, former Chair of the defunct All-Party Group on Gambling-Related Harms (APPG GRH) and a long-standing reformist for stronger gambling laws, welcomed the levy but argued that the measures do not go far enough.
He highlighted concerns over gambling harm, rising addiction rates, and the increasing influence of online gambling platforms.
He warned: “For years, we have seen families torn apart by gambling addiction. While I support the levy, I remain concerned that online gambling operators continue to have an unfair advantage over high street bookmakers. The £5 stake limit for online slots remains too high and must be reviewed urgently.”
Reformists further called on the government to guarantee that funds collected through the levy are properly allocated to gambling harm prevention and treatment, rather than “being lost in bureaucratic inefficiencies”.
Agenda for 2025: future regulations and industry adjustments
As Labour seeks to fully implement the levy structure and stake limits by 2025, further gambling regulations are expected to follow, including:
- Review of online advertising regulations, with potential restrictions on gambling promotions, particularly in sports sponsorship.
- Assessment of black-market exposures, as critics warn that tighter regulations could drive consumers toward unregulated platforms.
- Evaluation of affordability checks, which have been flagged as a measure that could deter casual bettors but fail to effectively target problem gamblers.
- Possible revision of stake limits, as Duncan Smith and reformists argue that the £5 cap on online slots is still too high and should align with highstreet.
Peacock added that DCMS is open to extending new gambling laws to cover specific gambling provisions in Northern Ireland, dependent on acceptance of NI’s Legislative Assembly.
While Labour defends the stake limits and the RET levy as proportionate and carrying overarching consensus, opposition voices led by French will continue to press for further revisions undertaken with “greater industry involvement”.
As the committee hearings continue, the debate over gambling regulation, industry sustainability, and consumer protection is set to remain a key policy battleground in 2025.