Parliament’s Health and Social Care Committee is calling for the Labour government to reassess the regulatory framework around gambling advertising and wider policies two years after the Gambling Act review White Paper’s publication.
MPs made the recommendations in a letter addressed to Labour’s Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention, Ashley Dalton. The legislators’ opinions are based on a hearing held on 2 April where health professionals’ opinions on the matter were heard, as well as a meeting with gambling reform advocacy group Gambling With Lives on 22 April.
MPs sharpen axe on advertising
One of the main talking points of the letter is that not enough has been done to address gambling advertising’s societal impact. This builds on and extends a long-running debate on betting’s public visibility and coverage, particularly during sports matches and via football sponsorship deals.
Reformists are particularly alarmed by claims that “80% of the UK population is exposed to some form of gambling on a weekly basis”. The letter calls for a review of the government’s approach to advertising, promotion and sponsorship, and for limitations on gambling advertising before the watershed to be considered.
In addition, the Committee wants Secretary Dalton’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to consider strengthening rules around gambling sports sponsorships.
This may be a tough nut to crack, however, as the Gambling Act review has already introduced a code of conduct on sponsorships across all major sports, whilst Premier League clubs have agreed to phase out front-of-shirt betting sponsorships from the 2026/27 season onwards.
Layla Moran MP, LIberal Democrats – Source: House of Commons
“We were particularly concerned to hear how intrusive and targeted some gambling promotion has become, including accounts of people receiving offers of free bets in the middle of the night,” the letter, signed by Layla Moran MP, Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, read.
“Given this, it was unsurprising to hear that some individuals experiencing gambling-related harms say that it feels like “there is no escape” from gambling.”
Gambling as a public health issue
The HSC Committee is, as its name suggests, tasked with scrutinising the work of the DHSC and making policy recommendations. However, gambling policies for the most part do not fall on the DHSC’s remit, instead being overseen by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
Throughout the Gambling Act review (2020-2023), there were repeated calls for gambling to be framed and regulated as a public health matter. The HSC Committee’s involvement in the debate over the past few months shows that this viewpoint remains strong even as the government proceeds to implement the recommendations of the Review.
The main reason for this is due to the increasing focus on gambling’s societal impact and the extent of gambling related harm in the UK, which the NHS is now going to have the main treatment and fundraising responsibility for via an annual research, education and treatment (RET) levy as of 6 April.
An issue has arisen in the fact that NHS England, an executive body of the DHSC, was chosen as the main steward of the levy and given responsibility for deciding where funding will be directed to.
However, NHS England is being abolished as part of Keir Starmer’s efforts to make government strategies, operations and spending more efficient. Committee MPs want to know what impact this could have on the levy.
“We recommend that the Government announce as soon as possible where responsibilities for commissioning treatment will lie following the reorganisation of NHS England, and engage with the voluntary sector about how the new commissioner will work with the third sector,” Moran’s letter read.
Regarding research, MPs also want to see how ‘gaps’ in how gambling harm is understood can be filled. Understanding how inequalities and health disparities can link to gambling harm is a particular area the MPs want to see addressed.
“We also heard about the wide range of data that gambling companies are able to collect about their users’ online gambling activity. We are concerned about the asymmetry in access to this information and the gaps this could create in our understanding of the nature and extent of gambling harms.”
The letter continued: “We recommend that the department and the Gambling Commission work together to mandate greater transparency in the data the gambling sector holds, including exploring the publication of anonymised or aggregate data, to support future research projects.”
A call for more reviews?
The HSC Committee is calling for some wide ranging reforms, many of which relate to very sensitive topics and issues. Gambling-related suicide is referenced in the letter, for example, and MPs have asked the health department what steps it will take to raise awareness of this.
The aforementioned topic of advertising is also one which is highly complex and has already been the subject of extensive regulatory debate and review. The Committee, and others, feel that not enough has been done, however.
MPs call for Labour to assign the Office of Health Improvement and Disparity (OHID) to work with the DCMS and the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) to review how gambling advertising, promotions and sponsorship are regulated.
The letter also ends with what appears to be a call for another review. Given the Gambling Act review was delayed multiple times, took around two and a half years to complete and was overseen by at least eight different ministers and/or under-secretaries, the government’s appetite for this will probably be lacking.
“We believe that the Government should review the Gambling Act to ensure that the current legislative framework gives all agencies the power and responsibilities needed to deliver a total system response,” the letter concluded.
Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester – Credit: R Heilig / Shutterstock
The MPs are not alone in calling for more reform, however. Local governments in particular, including the Mayor of Greater Manchester, are frustrated with what they believe are a lack of powers to deal with the gambling sector, particularly advertising and then licensing of gambling venues.
This is something noted by the Committee’s letter. MPs argue that Labour should consider giving more authority to local Directors of Public Health when assessing planning applications for betting and gaming venues, for example.
While the government seems committed to seeing out the recommendations of the Gambling Act review, it is clear that many political stakeholders feel more needs to be done and No 10 will continue to hear lobbying on the matter for the foreseeable future.
Also, similar to how the planned abolishment of NHS England has led to concerns that the RET levy could be directionless, it is also yet to be seen where a speculated disbandment of DCMS would lead the sector – would its political oversight fall to the DSHC, or to another department?
