Gambling-related harms: MPs call on Government to act
The Health and Social Care Committee has written to the Department of Health and Social Care about gambling-related harms.
The letter has come about as a result of the meeting between MPs and the anti-gambling charity Gambling With Lives, as well as an evidence session held in early April.
The authors claim the Government should be taking additional measures to prevent harm, citing some alarming figures about the consequences of gambling.
The letter calls for widespread changes across different areas including clarification on how the levy will be distributed, tighter restrictions on advertising as well as a full review of the Gambling Act.
Who or what is Gambling With Lives?
Gambling With Lives is an anti-gambling charity which focuses on raising awareness and providing support to people affected by gambling-related harm, directly and indirectly. It places emphasis on tackling and raising awareness of gambling-related suicides.
The charity was established in 2018 and is run by “families bereaved by gambling-related suicide”. It was founded by Liz and Charles Ritchie in the wake of their son’s death.
In addition to providing support to bereaved families, Gambling With Lives campaigns for tighter gambling regulations.
Evidence session
The letter makes repeated reference to an evidence session ordered by the House of Commons and carried out on 2 April.
Those present for the session include representatives from Gambling With Lives, the Health and Social Care Committee, various healthcare services, the Gambling Commission, relevant academics, and government figures.
The list does not, however, mention anyone representing the gambling industry. It appears that there were no stakeholders or Betting and Gaming Council spokespeople present – thus nobody to advocate for the gambling industry or present an alternative perspective.
The gambling industry, therefore, has not had an opportunity to address, verify or contest any of the claims made and referred to frequently throughout the MPs’ letter.
The letter
The letter received by the Department of Health and Social Care, dated 7 May, was signed by Layla Moran MP on behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee.
It wastes little time, laying out a few bare, bleak statistics before breaking down the several categories of issues that Gambling With Lives and the Committee wish to be addressed. Below, we examine each area referred to in the letter.
Prevention, regulation and advertising
The letter expresses concern about the ‘normalisation’ of gambling in British society and claims that “80% of the population [is] being exposed to some form of gambling advertising on a weekly basis”.
It’s worth noting that, even if 80% see adverts, it has been confirmed multiple times, over several years, that under half of UK adults gamble on a regular basis. This number drops to around 25% when removing National Lottery players (the Lottery is considered very low risk).
Also, whilst problem gambling is related to gambling participation, it is a tiny percentage of players who have issues. The data presented in the letter may be accurate, but this does not mean it necessarily reveals the whole picture.
The letter is critical of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), the body responsible for the allocation of funds from the new mandatory gambling levy.
It notes that, since prevention is addressed “through the levy and not through regulation”, and as the OHID says advertising is “slightly out of the scope of the levy”, the OHID is failing to address the relationship between gambling and advertising.
On these grounds, the letter calls for a review of gambling advertisement regulations. It proposes that these changes include:
- Limiting ads pre-watershed
- Strengthening rules on ad content to ensure it doesn’t appeal to young people
- Strengthening rules on sports sponsorship
- Limiting the frequency and types of promos that can be sent to customers
- Applying social media regulations to other advertising channels
Pros:
- Makes a great point about the OHID’s failure to address advertising
- Focuses on the protection of children
- Calls for OHID to launch an informative public campaign
Cons:
- Data may not be comprehensive
- Overlooks the economic impact: funding has to come from somewhere
Land-based gambling
Despite praising the Government’s recent decision to shelve plans to adjust some land-based gambling machine regulations, the letter expresses concern over the number of land-based gambling establishments in more deprived areas.
The letter states that some local councils have faced issues when challenging the planning permissions of these land-based gaming centres, effectively limiting their power to protect people. It calls for the Department to explain what support it provides to local authorities, and to consider making applications for local gambling licences subject to approval from Directors of Public Health.
Pros:
- Grants power to local authorities
- Protects vulnerable demographics
Cons:
- Could stifle the growing adult gaming centre sector
Research and data
The MPs call out an ‘incomplete’ evidence base regarding the best ways to combat gambling-related harm, and voice support for the Government’s decision to assign the UKRI the role of filling these gaps, funded by 20% of the levy.
In the letter, they suggest that the Government seeks to prioritise research into “inequalities and health disparities in relation to gambling-related harms”.
Regarding personal player data collected by operators, the letter calls for greater levels of transparency, mandated by the Gambling Commission (UKGC). It also suggests that the publication of anonymised data be considered, so that operators’ data can be used to support public studies of gambling-related harm.
Pros:
- Prioritises care for vulnerable groups
- Urges transparency and cooperation between casinos and regulator
- Supports evidence-based policymaking
Cons
- May stretch research funding
- Industry may resist sharing data
- Even anonymised data has implications for player privacy
Treatment
The MPs welcome the Government’s decision to put NHS England (and its Scottish and Welsh counterparts) in control of treating gambling-related harm, funded by 50% of the levy. It was understood that NHS England would use these funds to commission certain third parties to provide additional specialist treatment services.
However, the Government has announced plans to abolish NHS England in an effort to streamline health services, transferring its responsibilities to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). This makes it unclear whose responsibility it will be to commission third party services, and what their priorities may be.
Therefore, the MPs’ letter calls for the Government to “announce as soon as possible where responsibilities for commissioning treatment will lie following the reorganisation of NHS England”.
Pros:
- Urges the Government to move more quickly on its NHS England replacement announcement
- Clarifying the structures of treatment ensures consistent care
- Allows the third parties to plan for the future
- Keeping the voluntary sector in the loop results in more diverse treatment resources
Cons:
- Over-reliance on the voluntary sector could result in unstable services
- Announcement may cause temporary disruption to some services
- Deciding who replaces NHS England is not a decision to be made in haste
Monitoring implementation
In January, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published its guidelines for the “identification, assessment and management” of gambling-related harms. In their letter, the MPs support this, but request more information regarding how the guidelines will be implemented, and how medical professionals will be trained on them.
Regarding the allocation of levy funds, the letter calls for the Levy Advisory Group to publish an annual report on the effectiveness of the treatment services that it has funded. The intention of this is to ensure that the “full spectrum of gambling-related harms” is addressed.
Pros:
- Recognises the importance of the NICE guidelines
- Emphasises the importance of proper clinician training
- Raises good points about the accountability of levy spending
- Regular reports would ensure that levy funds are spent effectively
- Stresses the fact that gambling harm can take different forms
Cons:
- Monitoring spending and producing reports would eat into the funds
- At least initially, reporting more frequently than annually might be necessary
Suicide prevention and gambling-related deaths
Gambling With Lives is a charity which focuses on the most extreme end of the spectrum of gambling-related harm, particularly on suicide.
In the meeting that preceded this letter, Gambling With Lives made the case that gambling-related deaths are insufficiently investigated, resulting in families feeling that justice has not been reached, and important lessons are overlooked.
One reason for the oversights surrounding gambling-related suicide is that it is rarely recorded in medical records, unlike addictions to alcohol, drugs or smoking. The letter asks that the Government “raise awareness of gambling suicide amongst coroners and others involved in the investigation of sudden deaths”.
The letter claims that “117 to 496 gambling-related suicides every year in England” take place. Any number at all is tragic, of course, but this is a notably broad range. This wide, unspecific statistic might suggest an underlying weakness in the data. It may be the case that more research into gambling-related suicides is warranted.
The 2023 National Suicide Prevention Strategy names gambling as one of six “factors linked to suicide at a population level”. The MPs ask that the Government elaborate on “the new public health and preventative approach to gambling-related harms”.
Pros:
- Raises important concerns about secondary suffering and bereavement
- Highlights oversight in coroners’ and medical records
- Imprecise data highlights need for more research
- More awareness and better recording of gambling-related deaths could lead to reduced suicides
Cons:
- Potentially vague statistics presented as facts
- Recording gambling in the same way as other addictions will require reworking of healthcare and coroner systems
Review of the Gambling Act
The final area of focus for the MPs’ letter is a proposed review to the Gambling Act. The Government has announced that it is moving towards a more public health-focused system which spans “the local, regional, and national levels”.
To this end, the letter suggests that the Government “review the Gambling Act to ensure that the current legislative framework gives all agencies the power and responsibilities needed”.
Oddly, despite being a significant point, the call for a review of the Gambling Act feels like a bolted-on afterthought. The letter goes into very little detail on this point, even though it’s one of the meatier suggestions.
Pros:
- A review would ensure that all aspects of the system are working harmoniously
Cons:
- Lack of detailed suggestions and specifics
- Comprehensive reviews are complex, expensive and labour-intensive
- Recent Gambling Act regulations still in early phases
Summary
The MPs’ letter to the Government is a mixed bag, containing both realistic, actionable proposals, and some less realisable suggestions.
On one hand, it makes some good points, particularly about the OHID setting itself up for failure in regard to gambling advertisements. Also, sensible recommendations are made about the accountability of levy spending, caring for different types of gambling-related harm, and addressing suicide prevention.
On the other hand, some of the data contained within is vague, or presented with little context, or supported by the inherently skewed evidence session. Also, Gambling With Lives is coming from an aggressively biased standpoint, which is understandable, but not necessarily conducive to making realistic, practical proposals.
Critics will suggest that some of the recommendations within the letter are unrealistic, and that the MPs are simply trying to satisfy their constituents without consideration of wider groups.
The government and UKGC must consider the points made by these MPs carefully, but also ensure that they do not intrude on players’ privacy or exacerbate the exodus to illegal casino sites.
Responsible gambling
At No Wagering, we support and advocate Responsible Gambling. If you or anyone you know needs support, there are plenty of organisations who can offer assistance.