Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) I beg to move, That this House has
considered gambling advertising in sport. A couple of weeks ago in
this Chamber, we debated affordability checks in gambling, and the
Government Benches were rammed with those who seemed to have
racecourses in their constituencies. They did not understand that
affordability checks did not apply on course. I am not sure where
they are today—did someone say Cheltenham? I do not claim to be
an...Request free trial
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gambling advertising in sport.
A couple of weeks ago in this Chamber, we debated affordability
checks in gambling, and the Government Benches were rammed with
those who seemed to have racecourses in their constituencies.
They did not understand that affordability checks did not apply
on course. I am not sure where they are today—did someone say
Cheltenham?
I do not claim to be an expert on how advertising and marketing
work. Like most people, I am exposed to adverts on TV, billboards
and the internet. I wonder, does associating a puppy dog with a
certain brand of toilet paper make me more likely to buy that
brand? Do pictures of a car racing through stunning mountain
scenery or unusually empty city centre streets increase the
chances of me buying that particular car? Do adverts offering me
free bets or extra spins make it more likely that I will
gamble?
I—like most people, I presume—believe that I am impervious to
such obvious and sometimes clumsy attempts at selling, and then I
take a step back and see that I am also guilty of this. That is
particularly obvious during an election year. I am trying to get
re-elected, and I promote myself and the brand I represent
through advertising. I consider how best to get that combination
over to my constituents and, like most politicians, I use the
tried and tested methods of leaflets, door knocking, newsletters,
hustings, radio, TV and social media. I tell people, “Vote Cowan.
Vote SNP.”
My experience tells me that this has worked three times before,
and that I have therefore done something right. The gambling
industry is simply doing the same thing, but its income is vast.
It spends huge sums of money—£1.5 billion a year—to achieve a far
greater reach than any parliamentarian can, and we are all
exposed to it. If I see a letterbox that says “no leaflets”, I do
not post one. Unfortunately, the gambling industry is less
selective, and by placing adverts in and around sporting arenas
and putting them on the players and around the pitch, it removes
the opportunity for fans to decline the offer of being advertised
to.
Despite the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of
Advertising Practice, the gambling industry continues to stretch
the rules, with 3,500 gambling logos visible during a single
English premier league game, in plain sight for anyone to see.
Only 7% of those were on the front of shirts, so the impending
change to adverts on the front of shirts means nothing, and the
gambling industry knows it. It was proposed that family areas
free of gambling adverts could be established in football
grounds, but one year on, nothing has changed. When it comes to
advertising to children, bet365, Ladbrokes, MrQ, and Lights
Camera Bingo all broke the rules.
In short, if the gambling industry—any industry—did not think
that spending huge amounts of money was not generating more in
returns, it simply would not do it. Self-regulation is not
sufficient for any industry ever-hungry for more. Advertising
increases the gambling industry revenue. Advertising normalises
gambling. According to the ASA, that was a predicted consequence
of the Gambling Act 2005. Advertising increases the reach and
therefore the number of people who are gambling.
The hypocrisy is that while gambling benefits from the sports,
most sports do not actually benefit from gambling. The gambling
industry is a parasite living off the lifeblood of the sports
that it uses. It makes gambling the most important factor and the
sport a poor second. The game is not the same without a bet—that
is the message.
That is a great shame. I remember great moments in sport with
joy: Daley Thompson’s decathlon golds in 1980 and 1984; Ian
Botham’s 149 against Australia at Headingley; Ovett, Coe and Cram
racing against the clock and one another; Torvill and Dean at
Sarajevo in 1984; and Andy Murray winning Wimbledon twice. There
was not an advert in sight. And George Best just being George
Best—I did not need a bet on these things to enjoy them. The
sport must be the priority and gambling advertising must be
curtailed. I would say that, just like tobacco, it should be
completely removed from the world of sport.
Of course, this issue goes beyond that. The UK Government have
said that there was “good evidence” that advertising had a
“disproportionate impact” on people who already had problems with
their gambling. In addition, some forms of online advertising had
a strong appeal to those under 18. According to an Ipsos MORI
report, more than four out of five of those aged 11 to 24
reported seeing gambling advertising on TV, and that includes the
national lottery. Two thirds reported seeing gambling promotions
on their social media channels.
In September 2023, a Bristol University report told us that 92%
of content marketing ads sent by major gambling brands were not
clearly identifiable as advertising, which breaches a key
advertising regulation, and that less than a quarter of them
featured age warnings. There was at least one gambling advert
during any commercial break on talkSPORT radio and there were 600
gambling messages during two hours of Sky Sports News. In
addition, 1,902 gambling ads on social media generated a total of
34 million impressions.
One of the lead researchers, Raffaello Rossi, said that the
report showed that
“gambling marketing during Premier League weekends is
inescapable”,
and that fans were
“bombarded with gambling marketing through various channels,
making it a normal part of football consumption.”
He claimed that self-regulation of the gambling industry was
“completely failing”.
Meanwhile, the Gambling Commission will review incentives,
continue to monitor practices and work to strengthen consent for
direct marketing. But in the here and now, 80,000 UK children are
addicted to gambling or at risk, up to 1.4 million adults in the
UK are harmed directly and 20% of the population is harmed
directly or indirectly. There are between 117 and 496 gambling
suicides in England every year.
The time to review and monitor has passed. We need to understand
the nature of addiction and see it as a health issue. We need to
slow down gambling, build in cooling-off periods and give people
space and time to consider their actions and the outcomes.
Advertising does the opposite of those things; it pushes, cajoles
and encourages.
Finally, we need to respect the fact that some people might be
triggered by adverts. We need to protect our children. Nobody is
asking anyone to make some sacrifice for this; we are not asking
the Government to dip into their pocket. We can ban gambling
advertising and we should do that now.
2.37pm
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
As ever, Sir Christopher, it is a privilege to serve under your
stewardship. May I apologise in advance to the Members here,
including the Minister and the Opposition spokesman? I have been
losing my voice for most of the last week. Lots of my colleagues
think that is a good thing, but I give warning that if I stop
suddenly, it is because I have given up on this, although not on
getting rid of gambling advertising in sport, which is important.
I also may not be here for the wind-ups, because—self-evidently—I
have to go to a doctor’s appointment.
Alongside the hon. Member for Inverclyde ()—my hon. Friend in this
matter—I am a vice chair of the all-party group for gambling
related harm. Although we strongly support the measures that the
Minister has introduced—I credit him for having moved this issue
along more than many others have done before him—the whole idea
of voluntary agreements with the gambling industry have been
proved time and again to be a waste of time. All that happens is
that companies are driven by the requirement to constantly renew
the users of their gambling area and, most importantly, as we
know, the gambling industry targets those who lose, and lose big.
That is where their money is made and where their profits are
drawn from, and what they must constantly do is have their idea
in front of those people, to suggest to them subliminally, but
still very clearly, that if they just gamble a bit more, they
will win something else. That is the nature of gambling. People
say to me, “Yes, but you know, these are just adverts on shirts.
Nobody remembers seeing them.” But the figures, some of which
have been mentioned, are remarkable, and I will cite some of
them.
Ipsos MORI and the University of Stirling found that 96% of
people aged 11 to 24 had seen and could remember gambling
marketing messages and that they were “more likely” as a
result—their words, not mine—to bet as a result of their seeing
advertising on shirts and hoardings, or wherever they happened to
be. More than three quarters of young people, or 78%, and 86% of
adults think that betting has become an absolutely normal part of
watching sport—I will say that again: watching sport. Back in the
18th century, people bet everything on all sorts of sporting
events, and it had to be brought under control because of the
abuses that took place. Today, we see things that are redolent of
a very unlicensed, but at the same time, desperately dangerous
activity that is pushing people to spend their money and become
addicted to a process that ultimately damages them and their
families.
Gambling marketing in football cannot be avoided by fans of any
age. I say that as a season ticket holder at Tottenham Hotspur,
who do not use gambling, but I watch other teams and the
marketing is all over their shirts. I know the idea is to move it
away from the front of the shirt to the side or whatever, but
most of the evidence shows categorically that it makes no
difference, because the marketing will be on the shirts that
people buy. The company that the club has a sponsor becomes part
of the nature of the club. That is important.
One study found that at football matches there was a reference to
gambling on average every 21 seconds. Half of the premier
league’s 20 clubs and 17 of the 24 championship clubs have
gambling companies on their shirts and, of course, the football
league is sponsored by Sky, which has its own betting company.
They all use celebrities to front up a lot of the adverts and
present this as something normal and exciting. They target, for
the most part, young men, but now more and more young women, who
are portrayed as beating the odds. The reality is far from that.
I am not against people betting if they want to bet and
gamble—they can do that. The question is whether we want to see
this promoted in such a way that it becomes normal. That is the
critical issue that we are discussing.
Another concern at a recent session of the all-party group for
gambling related harm was the failure of current ASA codes to
deliver on the reduction of harm. In the opening weekend of the
EPL, it was observed that 92% of content—marketing ads—sent by
major gambling brands were not clearly identifiable as
advertising, as has been said, and thus breached the codes, which
is obvious for us to see. We know—the Minister knows—that this
happens all the time, so we need to tread very carefully when we
think that we can rely on agreements with the gambling industry.
It is not its nature, for the most part, to abide by those
agreements. It is its nature to seek to multiply the number of
people that will gamble, so it will push the envelope on any
agreement that is made.
The current codes are ill-equipped to deal with the
online-specific forms of marketing. The ASA should consider the
creation of new codes as opposed to revisions of pre-existing
codes. That would perhaps ensure that social media and online
marketing can be effectively regulated.
I am not one of those who wants to regulate everything, stop
everything and take the pleasure out of what people choose. My
view, however, is that, as with common law, when it is clear that
harm is being done, we have an obligation to see whether we can
restrict that harm so that people’s lives are not damaged—not
before, not anticipating the event, but actually dealing with the
harm that exists at present. The push of gambling advertising is
huge. Nobody who watches television or a sporting event can
escape the idea that this is in front of them, even subliminally,
although they may not remember it. Unless advertising reform is
enacted at the source of harm, the reforms will be confined to
playing catch-up to the constantly evolving landscape of
sponsorship, marketing and advertising, and consequently failing
to reduce gambling harms.
That is why I support the motion and why this matter is
cross-party. We have an obligation to deal with some of the
tougher issues that come our way. Notwithstanding the amount of
tax these companies pay to the Treasury, the harm to human beings
is the real currency of our lives, and we need to bring that to
an end.2.45pm
(Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde () on securing this important
debate on an issue that I and many of my constituents care deeply
about.
Almost 7,000 gambling messages were shown in six televised
matches over the premier league’s opening weekend. If that does
not set off alarm bells, I am not sure what will. My speech will
not completely oppose gambling—in fact, I am sure I will be
placing a bet on the grand national in a few weeks’ time, and my
other half does a few quid on the acca for football on a
Saturday—but it is clear that gambling addiction, fuelled by
excessive gambling advertisements, impacts our communities.
YouGov research found that nationally 1.4 million adults are
harmed directly by gambling. Shockingly, the Gambling Commission
stated that 80,000 UK children are addicted or at risk.
I want to say thank you to the brilliant organisations, Gambling
with Lives and The Big Step campaign, which raise awareness of
the harm that is being caused. They have introduced me to their
volunteers, who have personal connections to the harm caused by
gambling. Some had loved ones who sadly ended their lives as a
consequence of their gambling addiction. Others are survivors who
now campaign to ensure that other people do not suffer the pain
that they did. The message is always the same: the pain is
preventable. I have found many of these discussions incredibly
moving.
The current gambling regulations are failing the public terribly,
and there is no sign of change to protect the next generation, as
we have heard from others. The industry’s voluntary
whistle-to-whistle ban in football is completely ineffective, as
it applies only to TV adverts. Over two thirds of fans who
responded to a Survation poll said they felt it had not prevented
children from seeing gambling advertisements in football. With
insufficient regulation, football is often the hook to get the
young into gambling, especially as they are then cross-sold
highly addictive online casino products.
It is important to recognise that not just fans are impacted. We
have seen the impact on players in recovery who are made to
advertise the addictive products, including Ivan Toney, Sandro
Tonali and Harry Toffolo. Football is so important to our
communities, creating a shared identity that ties us together
with a common objective, mostly just three points at the weekend,
possibly six for Luton this weekend, but also seeing our team
represent us with dignity. That is why I am proud of my local
football club, Luton Town, for leading the way, by refusing to
choose a gambling shirt and stadium sponsor. Across the premier
league and the English football league, only Luton Town’s 19 home
games will not feature gambling adverts, according to The Big
Step. That is only 0.8% of games. It is disappointing that seven
premier league clubs will still display gambling companies as
their main shirt sponsor. Luton Town is part of The Big Step
campaign to kick all gambling advertisements out of football,
alongside other clubs such as Tranmere Rovers and Forest Green
Rovers. Sadly, not all football clubs can be relied on to do the
right thing, even though we know that a sponsorship ban would
cost clubs only around 2.5% of revenue.
What measures are the Government considering to curtail gambling
advertising in sport, especially in football? I reiterate the
point already made, that this is a public health issue. Just like
measures to reduce advertising of cigarettes to tackle smoking
harms, would the Minister consider, as a first step, a review
into banning pitch-side advertising in football, to reduce
gambling harm? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s
response.
2.49pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde () on leading the debate and
speaking so diligently on these issues, as he has in the Chamber
and Westminster Hall. He deserves credit and congratulations for
that. He has been vocal on the issue and I thank him for that. It
is such an important issue for the betterment of so many across
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I too
have been a supporter of further tightening gambling laws,
especially within sport, given the potential dangers for young
people and vulnerable adults. It is therefore great to be here to
support the matter and give the hon. Gentleman credit for the
debate and support his asks of the Minister. I am pleased to see
the two shadow Ministers in their place. I look forward to their
contribution and to others as well.
As I always do, I want to give a perspective from back home. That
is good to do because unfortunately, for us back home, gambling
has a bigger percentage impact on people than on the mainland.
That is terribly worrying. In December 2023, the Probation Board
for Northern Ireland stated that in its most recent survey, it
was discovered that in Northern Ireland some 2.3% of the
population was identified as having a gambling problem. That is
more than four times higher than the percentage recorded on the
GB mainland right here. That worries me incredibly and it
reflects my contact with some of my constituents on the issue as
well. That is why what the hon. Member for Inverclyde is bringing
to the fore is important and he deserves credit for that.
The impact that gambling has on young people is incredible.
Whether they see that through social media, ads on TV or even
live at football games, the encouragement is there for them to
feel the need to partake and participate. I commend the football
club of the hon. Member for Luton South (), Luton Town. I know of it
because I have been reading about it in the paper—and the team’s
manager was on TV this morning as well. It is really good to see
the club leading the way. I just wish other teams, including my
own, would be as diligent in the matter.
The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency has revealed
that three in 10, or 30%, of under-18s took part in some form of
gambling in the last 12 months. That is a worrying trend, with
young boys being more likely to partake. Of those, 15% of
children said that they were encouraged to do so by the adverts
they had seen on TV while watching football matches. We should
never think that watching matches and the advertisements that
viewers see do not have an impact. Those figures state it clearly
and that influence once again underlines the issue we have before
us today.
There was some movement in 2022 whereby footballers, celebrities
and social media influencers were to be banned from participating
in gambling adverts. There is no doubt in my head that watching
those people encourages young people to find a way to gamble.
Seeing their sporting heroes, such as ex-footballers, ex-football
managers and so on promote gambling does not, in my humble
opinion, do much for the cause of protecting young people against
the dangers of gambling. It is also great that that applies not
only to sporting events but to online gaming advertisements.
I have met and spoken with many families in the past who have
sadly lost their children due to the impact of online gambling.
Many have rightfully made the point that young people are taught
about the dangers of excessive drinking, drug use, smoking, road
safety and sextortion online, but they are not taught nearly as
much about the dangers of gambling and betting. They should be,
because the dangers are just as real. Issues can start small,
from something as simple as playing a card game with friends, but
the addictive nature of gambling makes the risk of winning
addictive, and that is harming so many young and adult lives.
Gambling, along with alcohol consumption, smoking and so on, is
one of the things in life that most people will be inclined to
try, and just by the very nature of the society that I was
brought up and lived in, it was the norm for the weekends and a
Saturday afternoon. Yet I believe we have a responsibility to
raise awareness of the dangers of gambling that come with misuse,
especially for young people out there who are not aware of the
long-term damage that can be caused.
I am therefore pleased that some of the correct steps have been
taken, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. He always
encapsulates well our desires for change and for highlighting
these issues, so I look forward to his comments. Some of the
steps taken to combat this include regulating ads on social media
and restricting betting company ads on TV to certain times, but
there is much more work to be done on this matter.
To conclude, there are some fantastic support services out there
for people who feel that their gambling is becoming or getting
out of control. I urge people to take advantage of all these
services for the sake of their own health and wellbeing. This
debate is twofold: it is about reducing the impact of advertising
in sport, but it is also about helping those people who have
those problems to try to beat their addiction. If we can do that
through this debate—even if it is a step in the right
direction—the hon. Member for Inverclyde deserves credit and is
to be commended for it. Others who make contributions will
endorse that.
2.55pm
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the
Chair, Sir Christopher. I think it is the first time in 14 years
that I have been called after the hon. Member for Strangford
(), but I am delighted to have been, because he made a
fine speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde
() on securing the debate and
on how he introduced it. I also congratulate the right hon.
Member for Chingford and Woodford Green ( ) on struggling through
against illness to make the case, which I know he feels
passionately about.
It is certainly timely that we debate this issue now, in the
context of the gambling reform that is following on from the
White Paper. It is important, because we need to look at the
context in which we saw the White Paper and in which we are
having this debate, which is the increasing level of gambling
addiction. I am a Sheffield United season ticket holder. It is
not easy. [Interruption.] I have to say to the hon. Member for
Inverclyde that there are not many moments of joy at Bramall Lane
at the moment. I have watched them for 61 years now, but over the
past couple of decades I have seen the increasing dominance of
gambling advertising throughout the game, and that is not simply
when we are having one of our fleeting moments in the premier
league. I am conscious that that is only the tip of an iceberg in
terms of the online promotion of gambling.
Over that same period, I have seen the increase in gambling harm.
Jack Ritchie, my constituent, of whom many people here know, was
also a passionate Sheffield United fan, but he took his own life
due to gambling addiction—one of an estimated 400 each year,
according to Public Health England. A survey by YouGov found up
to 1.44 million adults in the UK harmed directly by gambling. The
NHS is picking up the pieces, setting up specialist gambling
addiction clinics across the country. Last year, the NHS
announced seven new clinics, with one opening in Sheffield this
month.
What we are dealing with is recognised by the Government and the
NHS as a health issue, and what do we do with other health
problems? We treat them, but we also have prevention strategies.
The Government’s White Paper provides a strong prevention
strategy and, like the right hon. Member for Chingford and
Woodford Green, I commend them on it. There is much in there that
takes us significantly forward, but it sidesteps one important
point, which is advertising and how betting ads flood our
sports—football in particular.
Others have pointed out the estimate that 3,500 betting logos are
visible during a single televised premier league match; that is
extraordinary. That is a gambling logo every 16 seconds during
the average game. According to calculations from Gambling with
Lives, which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South () mentioned, out of 2,370
premier league and English football league games this season,
only 19 will not feature gambling ads. I join others in
commending Luton, and I hope that they might, along with
Sheffield United, escape relegation.
I mentioned harm to adults, but the hon. Member for Strangford
and others were right to also focus on the harm to young people.
That should worry us even more. According to the Gambling
Commission, 80,000 UK children are addicted to gambling or at
risk of gambling addiction. The commission says that 40% of 11 to
17-year-olds have engaged in some form of gambling over the last
12 months, which is a higher proportion than those who
participated in other risk-taking activities, with 20% vaping, 9%
having smoked a cigarette, and 8% having taken illegal drugs. On
all of those other high-risk activities we take action, and we
certainly do not advertise those products.
The 2023 study by Sheffield and Glasgow universities found that
the more people are exposed to betting advertising, the more
likely they are to gamble—that should not be a surprise; it is
what the gambling industry spends all that money for—and that
increases the risk of developing an addiction. We know that
children and young people are most likely to be affected.
According to a study from the University of Bristol, gambling ads
are almost four times—I think it is 3.9 times—more appealing to
children and young people than they are to adults. They say that
11 out of 12 gambling content marketing ads triggered positive
responses in children and young people, compared with only seven
out of 12 for adults. The Gambling Commission reports that most
gambling exposure for children is when watching TV, primarily
sport, or being at a sports event.
It is not just an issue for campaigners; fans themselves want
more to be done. A study by Survation found that a third of
football fans are less likely to buy a shirt with gambling
sponsors on it, and 58% think that too many clubs are sponsored
by gambling companies. Everton and Aston Villa fans have already
shown that shirts without betting sponsors are more popular.
When, at the end of the 2019-20 season, Everton and Villa ditched
their gambling sponsors, shirt sales rose by 60% and 50%
respectively.
Others have touched on self-regulation, the right hon. Member for
Chingford and Woodford Green in particular, and some cite action
by the Premier League, but that is not working. Football has had
every chance to address gambling advertising. Premier league
clubs voted to ban sponsorship deals with betting companies from
2026-27, but the ban does not include bans on shirt sleeves,
pitch-side hoardings or other sites around the stadium. That is
significant, considering that only 7% of the 3,500 logos are
visible on the front of the shirt. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Luton South pointed out, the industry’s voluntary
whistle-to-whistle ban is completely ineffective. Research
produced by the University of Bristol’s hub for gambling harms
showed that football matches remain saturated by gambling
messaging, and that over two thirds of fans feel that children
are not prevented from seeing gambling ads at football.
Action must come from the Government, and indeed the Government
in waiting. The Government publicly stated recently that online
slots are one of the most addictive products. That is correct,
but they still allow them to be promoted through football. The
White Paper proposed gambling ad-free family areas in football
grounds, but one year on nothing has been done. More matches are
set to be screened every week from next season. It is clear that
without Government intervention, more people, and particularly
more children and young people, are going to be at risk of
gambling harm.
The industry is running out of arguments to defend gambling
advertising in sport. I am surprised that no Members are here to
make this point—perhaps they are at Cheltenham—but we can
anticipate, and we are already seeing, the industry pushing
sports bodies and sports fans to press the case that their sport
depends on the revenue that they get from advertising. That is an
argument from scoundrels, and we have heard it all before. Big
tobacco said the same about the importance of cigarette
advertising in protecting individual sports, but we know that
they were trying to limit damage to their reputation by
association with sport. As we took action on cigarette
advertising, so should we take action on gambling advertising.
The industry will say, “Well, it’s not the premiership. It’s
lower levels and it’s grassroot sport—the money is needed to
sustain football.” Let us be clear: there is plenty of money in
football. It is not distributed very well—we need more effective
governance, and more of the money at the top to be shared right
down the tiers of football—but football and other sports do not
depend on the money from advertising.
I urge the Government to heed the wealth of evidence of the need
for regulatory action and to deploy a precautionary approach, as
with fixed odds betting terminals. Without action, the Department
risks undermining the good progress that can be made from the
White Paper. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde pointed out, sport
is so important. It is hugely important to children and young
people, and it is a force for so much good. We cannot let it be
used anymore by the gambling industry for so much harm. Let us
end advertising and sponsorship in sport without delay.
3.06pm
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon.
Friend the Member for Inverclyde () on securing it and starting
us off in his own style—it is always fun to sum up his speeches.
He questioned whether some of the Conservative Members might be
at Cheltenham, present company clearly excluded. He spoke about
puppy dogs and toilet roll, and then got to free bets, but he was
absolutely right. He also mentioned the hypocrisy—I would not say
“rank” hypocrisy—from MPs who seek to advertise. He mentioned
that he will be seeking to encourage folk to vote “Cowan” and
vote SNP. Hopefully, that will be made easier by the fact that he
is stealing a significant chunk of my constituency at the next
election, so there are some SNP voters waiting there for him.
My hon. Friend made a good point about the consent of spectators
and viewers. Those images and adverts are everywhere; not
everyone wants to see them, but they are in their face
regardless. He then spoke about all the moments in sporting
history when we were not subject to such adverts. I can
understand Torvill and Dean, the battles between Coe and Ovett,
and of course Andy Murray, but I found to be a stretch too far. That
is at least two Tories that a younger Mr Cowan idolised, and I am
not sure that will go down well. [Laughter.]
I am being a bit flippant about the very serious issue that lies
beneath today’s debate: problem gambling and how we end it. I
remember very well when, I think in the first year that I had
been elected, a chap came along to my constituency surgery in
Linwood. He was there for the whole surgery, essentially 45
minutes, talking to me about his story, his gambling past and how
he had been at death’s door; he had ruined his life, ruined his
family, and so on. He had been offered no real assistance in
trying to stop, certainly nothing from the gambling industry, and
he was looking to try to help others from going down the same
path. Fixed odds betting terminals were certainly part of his
path, and we have legislated on those, but it progressed into all
sorts of different forms of gambling. He manged to turn his life
around, but that is not the norm.
The former Conservative leader, the right hon. Member for
Chingford and Woodford Green ( ), the quiet man who once
said he was turning up the volume, turned it down today, due to
his voice trouble. I was going to say that he had my sympathy,
but he is a Spurs season ticket holder, so things are looking
up—I will come on to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central
() in a minute! The right hon.
Gentleman made a very good point about subliminal messaging
through advertising that says, “If you gamble just a bit more,
then you’ll win.” All of us have probably been suckered into
something at some point or another, whether it is gambling, a
purchase, or something else, by of subliminal advertising. He
mentioned that there was a reference to gambling every 21 seconds
in premier league matches, but I think the hon. Member for
Sheffield Central said it was every 16 seconds. I do not know
whether those are conflicting figures or I just misheard, but
either way, it is a significant number; I just wanted to
recognise that there were two figures there for Hansard.
The hon. Member for Luton South () mentioned that she might
put a bet on the grand national, and that her partner puts on an
acca on occasion. That makes me think back to my younger days and
how much gambling used to play a part in my pre-rugby rituals.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, I used to play
rugby, and my friends and I would meet on a Saturday morning and
“put lines on”, as we said —that would be called an acca now.
Then we would go and play pool, at which we invariably gambled a
bit against each other, and then go downstairs to play the
puggies, which is a term for fruit machines in western Scotland.
I had not given that any thought until the hon. Member for Luton
South said that. I very rarely do any gambling these days, but in
my younger days, we thought nothing of gambling as a matter of
course. For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Lady is pointing to
her phone, and she is absolutely right that it is so much easier
to access the internet on phones these days as well. She also
said that two thirds of fans said that the voluntary regs have
not prevented children from being able to access or see TV
advertising, and I think we all see that. She mentioned Luton
Town, one of the very few teams in sport to ban gambling from not
just its shops, but its stadium, which is to be commended.
Yesterday morning, I said that Westminster Hall should be named
in the honour of the hon. Member for Strangford (), because he is always here and always puts in a
shift. He praised Luton Town, and said that all teams should
perhaps reflect on its gambling ban, including his own. He
neglected to mention which team that was, but we might hazard a
guess. One of his better points—or best points; better points
sounds as if he did not make any good points, and he made some
excellent ones—was on the fact that we teach our young people and
young adults about excessive drinking, smoking, excessive speed
in cars, and so on, but we do not seem to talk about gambling as
much, which we should.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central noted that this was the
first time he had been called after the hon. Member for
Strangford in all the time he had been here. If it had been
anybody else, that might have sounded like a moan or a challenge
to the Chair, but having worked with the hon. Member for
Sheffield Central a few years ago, I know it certainly was not
that. He mentioned that he was a Sheffield United season ticket
holder. I have to say that I do not think they have troubles to
seek this season in a footballing sense, but as a St Johnstone
fan, I share his frustrations, given that St Johnstone is near
the lower end of the table for the moment. He also mentioned the
study by the Universities of Sheffield and Glasgow, and their
findings that the more people are exposed to advertising, the
more likely they are to gamble, and the more likely people are to
gamble, the more likely they are to fall into problem gambling,
seem obvious. He also mentioned big tobacco. It fought
advertising bans, and so on, but a lot that we have done about
smoking has paid dividends. If we put in the work on gambling, we
can see dividends there as well.
It is fairly clear that gambling regulations must protect
vulnerable people from harms, regardless of where they are
exposed to gambling adverts. The time has beyond passed for
action to tackle the shocking rise in gambling advertising. The
Government have been praised for the work they have done in some
areas hitherto, but we need to look pretty sharpish at their
failure to address this problem, because advertising revenue has
grown massively since the passage of the Gambling Act 2005. The
National Audit Office estimated that there was a 56% increase in
advertising spend by gambling operators between 2014 and 2017,
driven primarily by online and social media advertising. If that
was the proportion in 2017, goodness knows where it is now.
The Government’s White Paper on gambling is obviously to be
welcomed. Its proposals include tougher restrictions on bonuses
and direct marketing; making advertising smarter and safer; a new
approach to safer gambling messaging; and socially responsible
sport sponsorship—which is one of the main issues we are here to
talk about. The Premier League has announced that front-of-shirt
advertising for gambling is to end by the end of 2025-26 season,
but the Culture, Media and Sport Committee said, as we have
discussed, that:
“The withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of Premier
League players’ kit is welcome, but it will not significantly
reduce the volume of gambling adverts visible during top-flight
matches.”
It is pretty clear that there is a need for the Government to
regulate gambling advertising, and we need to have a
comprehensive conversation about how, if at all, gambling adverts
should be allowed. Ultimately, this is a policy debate about the
reduction of harms, and what is the point of us being here if we
are not going to try to reduce harms for all of our constituents?
We call on the Government to actively consider legislating to
restrict the amount of advertising that gambling firms can
procure in public broadcasting and sporting events.
The only slight caveat—not to that previous point, but in general
terms—was to something that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central
said. He said that there is absolutely no need for this form of
advertising in principle—I agree 100%—and that there is enough
money in football so football does not need that money. The only
slight caveat I have, having met Scottish clubs and umbrella
bodies, is that the Scottish game is not awash with the same
level of money as the game in England. Advertising revenue is
much harder to come by in Scotland, with it being a much smaller
market in comparison with England, so restrictions could cause
problems. That does not mean we should not address and tackle
this issue, but we should put on the record that it is not as
straightforward in Scotland, Wales and so on as it perhaps is
south of the border.
In 2018-19, gambling companies yielded more than £11 billion,
which raised about £3 billion for the Government in gambling
duties. The industry has been transformed by social and
technological changes, and licensed gambling has grown by 57% in
real terms in the last decade. But British gamblers lose £14
billion a year, according to the Gambling Commission, and Britain
is home to the world’s largest regulated online betting market,
with £14.2 billion in profits each year. Other countries, such as
Germany, have introduced limits on how much customers can
deposit. In our view, the 2005 Act must be modernised and made
effective for the digital age, to provide adequate protection
against gambling-related harms for problem gamblers and
children.
To conclude, for problem gamblers the impact of gambling can be
harmful and massively addictive. We have heard already that more
than one person a day commits suicide in the UK because of
gambling-related harms. Sadly, as we heard, that includes Jack
Ritchie, who lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for
Sheffield Central. Two million families are blighted by problem
gambling, and more than 55,000 children between the ages of 11
and 16 are addicted to it. Those are pretty shocking
statistics.
I will finish with this: according to a YouGov survey of 18,000
people, commissioned by GambleAware, gambling addiction rates may
be nine times higher than the betting industry claims.
GambleAware estimates that 1.4 million people are being harmed by
their own gambling, with a further 1.5 million at risk. Although
this debate’s attendance has not been as good as it perhaps
should have been, we have had five Back Bench speeches, and now
one Front-Bench speech, all speaking with one voice on this
issue. It is time for the Government to act, or indeed for a new
incoming Government to do so, if one is elected at the end of the
year.
3.19pm
(Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde () for securing this important
debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests.
The relationship between gambling and most sports is complex and,
in many ways, symbiotic. However, given the growing knowledge of
the impact of gambling harms on people’s lives, many have raised
concerns about that connection. They worry that football and
other sports might be playing a role in exposing vulnerable fans,
sportspeople and, in particular, children and young people to the
gambling market. Having met some of those receiving treatment for
gambling addiction and families bereaved by gambling-related
loss, I have seen the devastating effect that gambling can have
on people’s lives.
In 2020, it was estimated that 7% of the population, including
adults and children, were negatively affected by someone else’s
gambling. That is even more concerning in a modernised world in
which most people have the ability to gamble anywhere, at any
time, on their phones. I am therefore pleased that the Government
are finally under way with the implementation stage of the
long-awaited gambling White Paper, which looks to make our
gambling regulation fit for the modern digital era. Indeed, it
has cross-party support, as the right hon. Member for Chingford
and Woodford Green ( ) and my hon. Friend the
Member for Sheffield Central () outlined.
The White Paper was, though, relatively light-touch on the issues
that relate to gambling advertising in sport. It identified
sports governing bodies as best placed to drive up standards
regarding their gambling sponsorship deals. That is not to say
that no action has been taken in this area: outside the White
Paper, regulators, the industry and sports have made progress to
increase protections. Last week, I met the Advertising Standards
Authority, which told me about its work to regulate gambling
advertising, particularly with a view to protecting children and
young people, including the “strong appeal” test.
The gambling industry has signed up to a voluntary code of
socially responsible advertising, which bans gambling adverts
before 9 o’clock. The most recent version covers most live sport
from five minutes before it starts to five minutes after it has
ended. That is known as the whistle-to-whistle ban, and it has
reduced the number of TV betting commercials viewed by children
during live sporting events before the watershed by 97%. The
Premier League has also announced that front-of-shirt gambling
sponsors will be withdrawn from the start of the season in
2026.
However, those measures have received their fair share of
criticism. Viewers are still exposed to a high number of gambling
adverts and logos during sporting events, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Luton South () highlighted. That happens
through a number of visuals, from hoardings and perimeter boards
to players’ kits. Indeed, the Premier League’s commitment does
not cover sponsorship on the sleeves and backs of shirts, and is
not yet enforced.
As already discussed, the revenue from gambling sponsorship is
crucial to some sports. However, the prevalence of such adverts
poses a particular issue for children and those vulnerable to
problem gambling as they are difficult to avoid, as the hon.
Member for Strangford () said. As with the online space and direct marketing,
it is not possible to opt out of such adverts. That makes it hard
for those with personal experience of problem gambling to follow
the sports they previously enjoyed, and it is hard for parents to
know the best way to protect their children from harm.
In that context, we need the sports sponsorship code of conduct
to be published. That code, required by the Government’s White
Paper and led by sports governing bodies, would recognise that
the relationship between gambling and sports needs to be
conducted responsibly in order to prevent gambling harm in both
sportspeople and sports fans. I understand that it will be based
on the principles of reinvestment, sporting integrity, protecting
children and vulnerable people and socially responsible
promotion. In practice, it could include things such as a
requirement that replica kits be available without gambling
logos, a commitment to reinvest sponsorship funds into grassroot
activities, the use of sponsorship to promote safer gambling
messages and the protection of those in family areas in stadiums
from being able to see gambling advertising.
I understand that as part of the development process there will
initially be one main code to cover all sporting bodies, and
after that each governing body will be able to develop a short
sport-specific code, whether it be for racing, cricket, football
or others. However, there has been no sign of the main code, let
alone the sport-specific commitments. I therefore ask the
Minister whether he will call on the governing bodies to publish
the codes without further delay, perhaps in time for the first
anniversary of the White Paper. That is something that the
Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended in its report
published last year, to which the Government have yet to respond.
That is a concern, because without the code the White Paper seems
to hardly address the relationship between gambling and sport. It
is only through a combination of measures, from giving the
Gambling Commission powers to crack down on the black market to
restricting bonus and free bet offers, that we will bring our
regulation into the modern age and better protect people from
harm.
There is no question but that gambling advertising on the whole
has increased in the past two decades. The impact of gambling
harms could be better understood and researched. That is one
reason why I would like to see the statutory levy for gambling
get under way soon, so that levy funds can be used to conduct the
research needed to aid effective prevention and treatment methods
going forward. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister
provided an update on the levy consultation and when the
Government might expect to publish a response.
To conclude, I hear the concerns about the impact of gambling
advertising in sport on children and young people, as well as
those vulnerable to harm. Given the reliance of many sports on
gambling sponsorship for revenue, it is crucial that the
governing bodies reflect on that relationship and issue their
code of conduct as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will
reaffirm his commitment to ensuring that the code is published,
and to the implementation of the White Paper more broadly.
(in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I note that the hon. Lady
began her speech by referring to the Register of Members’
Financial Interests, but she did not expand on that at all.
People who are following this debate, and others like it, need to
be informed about the nature of those interests; would the hon.
Lady like to spell out them out?
I have previously taken hospitality from the gambling industry. I
would have to check the dates to say specifically which body it
was, but I am happy to inform the House at a later date if
needed.
(in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
3.26pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde () for securing this important
debate. His SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Paisley and
Renfrewshire North (), complained that his hon.
Friend is pinching part of his constituency; as someone whose
entire constituency is to be abolished, I certainly have some
sympathy.
In all seriousness, it is important that we are having this
debate, which raises the issue at a crucial moment in the
Government’s commitment to tackling gambling harms. I thank all
those who have contributed for their thoughtful comments. It has
been valuable for me to hear the range of perspectives. Indeed,
in my time as the gambling Minister I have welcomed the
constructive engagement we have had, because I am keen to hear
from all sides. I recognise that many people gamble safely, but
equally I am always mindful of the families—I think we have all
met them—who have gone through some of the most unimaginable
pain.
The Government recognise the concerns that many have raised about
the presence and impact of gambling advertising in general, and
particularly in sport. Gambling advertising clearly remains an
issue of vibrant debate, and rightly so. Colleagues have raised
it with me directly and in the media since I took on the gambling
brief just over a year ago. The debate on advertising
encapsulates the balance we are aiming to strike on gambling
regulation. We are looking at regulating an innovative and
responsible gambling industry on the one hand, and at the duty of
the Government to protect children and the wider public from
gambling-related harm on the other.
As colleagues have mentioned, developments in technology have
undoubtedly led to rapid changes in the gambling landscape. The
smartphone era comes with risks and opportunities, so we need to
strike the balance between freedom and protection. That is why we
committed to a root-and-branch review of gambling legislation. We
took an exhaustive look at the best available evidence, including
on advertising, as part of our Gambling Act review. The White
Paper that we published in April last year captures our vision
for the sector, with a robust package of reforms aiming to
mitigate the risks of gambling-related harm and seize the
opportunities to prevent it as early as possible.
It has been said that we sidestepped the issue of advertising. I
think that is slightly unfair. The evidence-led action on
advertising forms an important part of that vision. The
liberalisation of gambling advertising was one of the major
changes introduced in the Gambling Act 2005, and we have
undoubtedly witnessed the continual growth of gambling marketing
since then. However, it is important to note that we have not
seen an increase in gambling participation rates or population
gambling harm rates over the same timeframe. Those have remained
broadly the same. None the less, I recognise that a parallel
change has been the increasingly visible integration of gambling
advertising with sport. That is especially relevant to me as the
Minister responsible for sport, alongside civil society.
In our Gambling Act review, we considered evidence that gambling
brands provided 12% of sport sponsorship revenue. Gambling brands
are most strongly present in top-tier football, as has been
mentioned, where eight out of 20 premier league teams this season
have front-of-shirt gambling sponsors. In fact, gambling sponsors
contribute around £45 million a year across the English Football
League’s three leagues, and a significantly higher proportion of
revenue in the Scottish football leagues, as the hon. Member for
Inverclyde mentioned. Gambling sponsorship also represents a
significant source of income for sports other than football, with
around £80 million in sponsorship revenue.
We know that sponsorship by gambling firms can have a level of
impact on gambling behaviour. The Gambling Commission’s consumer
journey research shows that seeing sponsorship is a “passive
influence” on gambling behaviour, although it is far less
influential than winning a significant amount of money or hearing
about someone else’s big win. The evidence to date therefore
shows that while gambling advertising around sport is widely
noticed, it has a background effect when it comes to having an
impact on gambling behaviour.
I accept that the Minister is making an argument with integrity,
but if advertising has such a marginal impact, why does he think
the gambling industry spends so much on it?
We have had this discussion before. One of the reasons that our
White Paper has landed as well as it could do in a challenging
policy area is that it has been developed through use of the very
best evidence. I will come on to that point later, because I
think there is further work to be done in this field.
The industry’s whistle-to-whistle ban has cut the number of pre-9
pm betting adverts to around a quarter of their previous level,
as the hon. Member for Barnsley East () mentioned, and further
cut the average number of sports betting adverts seen by children
to just 0.3 per week. None the less, we also know that gambling
sponsorship is one of the main ways children are exposed to
gambling, and that gambling marketing can have a disproportionate
impact on those already experiencing gambling harm. That is why
the advertising rules have been strengthened since October 2022.
Content that has a strong appeal for children, such as that
involving top-flight footballers, and that creates a sense of
urgency to gamble is banned from appearing in gambling adverts.
This measure further protects children and vulnerable adults.
Following on from the gambling White Paper, we are in the process
of implementing a comprehensive suite of protections, ranging
from action on advertising, products and the way that gambling is
provided to prevent gambling-related harms. In line with existing
gambling advertising rules, as has already been mentioned, the
Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by
gambling firms will commence by the end of the 2025-26
season.
I can also confirm that a cross-sport code of conduct for
gambling sponsorship has been agreed by a number of the country’s
major sports governing bodies, from the Premier League and the
English Football League to the British Horseracing Authority, the
England and Wales Cricket Board and others. Indeed, the Rugby
Football League sought to build in the code’s provisions as part
of its renewed agreement with Betfred. This landmark code fulfils
a key commitment from the White Paper ahead of schedule, and will
bind all domestic sports governing bodies to four core
principles. First, all sports will ensure socially responsible
promotion. Education and awareness will form a key part of all
sports’ marketing activities, including in stadiums.
The Minister has just acknowledged the need to build education
support. Will he acknowledge the fact of the potential damage
that has been done by this product in the first place? The
gambling industry cannot have it both ways; these companies are
causing the damage and at the same time painting themselves as
the good guys because they are helping to support people out of
addiction. They cannot own both organisations.
As I said, I will come on to further research that I feel we need
to do, but I want also to emphasise that we are trying to do a
considerable amount of work here as part of the wider White Paper
reforms. In essence, we are trying to deal with 15 years of
digital progress, which is quite significant.
At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the team over at the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They are working
extremely hard to meet the commitment we made to get the majority
of the code done by the summer of this year, recognising that its
implementation will have the greatest impact on tackling gambling
harm.
The second core principle is the protection of children and
vulnerable people. Sponsorship has to be designed to limit reach
to children and those at risk of gambling harm, and this will see
adult replica kits, as was mentioned, available without the
front-of-shirt gambling logo.
The third principle is one of reinvestment into sport. The
commercial income raised from gambling sponsorship will provide
grassroots services that genuinely serve fans and
communities.
Finally, the code will ensure that gambling sponsorship maintains
sport integrity. Sponsorship arrangements will build in
appropriate requirements that they do not compromise the
integrity of sporting competitions nor harm the welfare of
participants. Together, those principles will establish a robust
minimum standard for gambling sports sponsorship across all
sports.
Of course, commercial arrangements and fan-bases differ across
the industry, and that is why individual sports governing bodies
will also introduce bespoke arrangements to fulfil these
principles in a way that is tailored to maximise their impact.
Some sports, including football, intend to have their
arrangements in place as early as this year ahead of the next
season. Ultimately, this will guarantee that, where gambling
sponsorship does appear, it is done in a responsible way and that
fans, especially children, are better protected.
There is no single intervention that effectively prevents
gambling-related harm, and that is why we have taken an
evidence-led approach to implement a package of reforms targeted
at different levels, including advertising. We absolutely
recognise that advertising can have a disproportionate impact on
those experiencing gambling harms. Technological advances and
developments and the increasing dominance of online gambling have
necessitated a doubling of efforts from us as a Government. We
and the Gambling Commission are now taking targeted action to ban
harmful practices and to ensure that advertising remains socially
responsible wherever it appears.
The commission has recently consulted on strengthened protections
to ensure that free bets and bonuses are constructed in a way
that does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling, and that
is in conjunction with new rules to give consumers more control
over the direct gambling marketing they wish to receive.
Together, the measures will empower customers and prohibit
harmful marketing practices to further prevent the risk of
gambling harms. The commission will set out its response to the
consultation in due course.
Our holistic approach also includes action on the products
themselves. We recently announced the introduction of stake
limits in online slot games, as was mentioned, where we have seen
evidence of elevated levels of harmful gambling. But we are also
pursuing broader protections, such as financial risk checks and
further strengthening restrictions on game design. I am clear
that effective and innovative collaboration to get the right mix
of interventions for the population as a whole and those with
specific needs is required to tackle this issue.
Evidence has been a key theme in this debate, and I want to end
in recognising that further work is needed in this area. A
concerted effort to build the evidence base to ensure policy and
regulation are able to deal with the emerging issues is
paramount, and the Gambling Commission’s important work on the
gambling survey for Great Britain aligns with this priority. The
survey will in time provide us with a better picture of gambling
behaviour and the nature of gambling-related harm.
However, developing quality evidence is also a key priority for
the Government’s statutory levy. Increased and ring-fenced
funding will be directed towards high-quality, independent
research into gambling and gambling-related harms, including on
advertising. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made
clear at the launch of the White Paper, if new evidence suggests
that we need to go further, we will look at this again.
I again thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde for securing this
important debate and all the Members who made valuable
contributions. I am committed to tackling gambling-related harms
and I am confident that the action we are taking will have a real
impact in reducing those harms across the country. The new levy
will provide us with even more evidence. As I have already
committed, if further action is needed we will look at it
again.
3.40pm
I thank everybody who has taken the time and effort to be here
today and spoken so well, and I thank the Minister for being
here. I understand the hard work that staff are putting into
resolving the gambling issues that we have. We all have
constituents that are damaged and families that have been torn
apart. I am sure that in some cases individuals have committed
suicide because of their gambling addiction. It is not always
obvious because gambling addiction tends to be a hidden
addiction.
I did the Big Step and Gambling with Lives walk—I have done it a
number of times. The last time one of the guys came up to me
during the walk and said, “If I was an alcoholic and my local
landlord came to my door at night and said, ‘Have a case of beer,
have a bottle of whisky, have a bottle of gin’, people would
think that behaviour reprehensible. I am a recovering gambling
addict and people still send me adverts saying, “Do you want a
free bet? Do you want five bets on this?” It is exactly the same
thing.
I thank all the organisations and individuals that have helped me
gain a better understanding of the situation, none more so than
Martin Paterson. As a recovering gambling addict, he sent me a
message today. He said,
“Can I add, as a person in recovery like millions of others over
the years the ads are triggering so many back into the hole of
gambling addiction.”
Martin, stay strong. We will keep up the fight.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered gambling advertising in sport.
|
