High Street Gambling Reform

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Siân Berry

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I give huge thanks to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for proposing the motion. I was pleased to support the application for the debate. We have just heard an excellent case for action and some really clear examples of the harm that gambling causes. I am also a member of the APPG on gambling reform; I thank its chair, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for his work. It is clear that Members across parties feel passionately that the Government are ignoring clear evidence and going far too easy on this industry.

This debate is very timely: by chance, tomorrow I will be visiting the excellent Breakeven charity in Brighton, which provides free support for Brightonians dealing with gambling-related harm, including people’s partners, family members and friends. I want to thank some of the brilliant campaigners on gambling reform and harm who I meet regularly for their work, including Matt Zarb-Cousin of Gamban, Gambling with Lives, which is incredible, and the many other local charities in Brighton that are working on addiction, including to gambling, and recovery.

The motion focuses on planning policy, and we have heard excellent further suggestions about licensing. I fully support the proposal in the motion to remove the “aim to permit” provision. Councils must be able to control the spread of gambling premises in every way possible. Currently, gambling debates often centre around online gambling, which is clearly a growing menace, and its excessive levels of advertising, but much of the harm still occurs in our neighbourhoods. GambleAware research has shown that shopfronts on the high street are the source of a high number of advertising views.

My recent work on that aspect has included proposing changes to Brighton and Hove city council’s gambling policy. My response to its review highlighted the proliferation of high street gambling establishments in my city. As evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last year stressed, gambling companies concentrate their efforts in areas of greater deprivation. However, coastal constituencies such as mine also have a very high density of gambling facilities due to our history as seaside resorts, which I believe has a harmful impact on my constituents.

According to the council, the total number of licensed gambling premises where residents and visitors can gamble in Brighton and Hove was 257 as of May 2024. In comparison, we have 25 GP surgeries, 13 libraries, 44 dentists, around 20 youth services and seven leisure centres. Soon, we could have more gambling establishments than the city’s 340 pubs. For that reason, my submission to the council called for the introduction at the very least of a one in, one out principle for gambling establishments to represent and respect our licensing objectives of preventing harm to children and people with vulnerabilities, including problem gambling and addiction. To back up that policy, I also want to see the prohibition of advertising gambling on billboards, bus stops, buses and any other outdoor advertising sites in the city.

Advertising bothers me in many ways, but on this topic it makes me really angry. I think the Government could do a lot more about it. With the physical adverts in our neighbourhoods alongside all the gaudy shopfronts, coupled with the ever-present marketing on social media and television every time we tune into sport, it is no wonder that we are seeing increased gambling harms. The Gambling Commission has estimated the problem gambler rate to be close to 2.5%. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ latest population estimates, that puts well over 1 million people in Great Britain into the category of problem gamblers. The commission also estimated a further 3.1 million people to be classified as at risk, with many more harmed indirectly.

That is experimental data using new survey methodologies and it is regularly challenged by the industry, which does not surprise me, because it is so shocking. However, it is backed up by other evidence. We know that the national gambling helpline is receiving more calls and online chats than ever before. The NHS has also reported significant growth in referrals to its gambling harm services.

Young people are increasingly at risk from this harm. In 2018, the GambleAware charity commissioned two reports to consider the extent and nature of the impact of gambling marketing and advertising on children, young people and vulnerable groups in the UK. It reported that, although children are not directly targeted by advertisers, almost all children and young people see gambling adverts. Only 4% of 11 to 20-year-olds who participated in the survey reported that they had not been exposed in the previous month. High street premises clearly contribute to that, alongside the advertising that bothers me so much.

It is clear that the Government have worked to advance the 2023 White Paper proposals. I welcome the introduction of a statutory levy on gambling operators in place of the voluntary scheme, which will generate money for research, prevention and treatment. I also welcome next steps on financial vulnerability checks and enhanced risk assessments for the online services, and the withdrawal of gambling sponsorship from the front of premier league players’ shirts by the end of this season—although that will not address the significant volume of gambling adverts that are visible during top-flight matches. We are also ambling towards a gambling ombudsman, but it should have been up and running by the summer of 2024.

As the hon. Member for Brent East said, we need bolder action, and it must focus on the high street, as the motion rightly sets out. We must give local councils the powers to properly regulate the spread of gambling premises, among other things. I have encouraged my local council to get together with other councils and to use the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to produce proposals—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has reached the seven-minute limit. I call Feryal Clark.

LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Siân Berry

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

We have heard some very powerful stories today. It is not every day that my constituency surgeries lead me to well up—I am normally as hard as nails—but I recently had the pleasure of meeting Craig Jones MBE, one of the founders of Fighting With Pride. He talked so powerfully about his own and other veterans’ stories of pain and injustice, but he also spoke of honour and pride. It was deeply moving to speak with him.

During our meeting, the word “honour” came up time after time, as Craig described his LGBTQ+ colleagues in the armed forces who suffered so much under the ban which, we must reflect today, was lifted only in 2000. In the period before that, thousands and thousands of LGBTQ+ service personnel were removed or forced from service and many, as we have heard, were physically or sexually abused. Craig told me that many of his colleagues felt “washed in shame” because of what happened to them.

In those days, simply admitting to being gay was dangerous and had far-reaching consequences, which we must compensate for today. Although homosexuality was decriminalised for civilians in 1967, it remained a criminal offence in the armed forces. These people faced imprisonment. We must compensate fully for that.

Craig described moving to Brighton, saying that our city was the only place in which he and his partner felt safe. On the day that the ban was lifted, he came out as gay and, after a few more years, he left the forces. He helped found Fighting With Pride, and took part in that excellent campaign that led to the Etherton review and the actions that we are pleased to welcome today.

But I do not think that this is finished. As other Members have said, the financial scheme is crucial; it must provide full compensation. It appears that Lord Etherton was unable to go higher than the recommendation in the review of a cap of £50 million, and was unable in his terms of reference to recommend a financial scheme that was unconstrained. This £75 million is a rise, but, as others have said, it is not high enough. Fighting With Pride has said that £150 million would be a more realistic estimate if it is to provide real justice to the people who might come forward.

In the interests of real justice, I do not believe that we can cap this number at all. As the Royal British Legion has said in response to the earlier proposed cap, the cap provides an incentive for the Ministry of Defence to limit the number of people applying for compensation, in opposition to the aim of achieving fair recompense. Moreover, Fighting With Pride today asked whether the flat rate of £50,000 would really be able to compensate for the pensions that would have been earned by all those people who were discharged early.

As Craig pointed out to me, this has been a “discreet” community. We still do not know how many people could come forward having been harmed by these unjust policies in ways not envisaged by the strict types of payment described in today’s statement. For the wider impact payment, we are talking about harassment, invasive investigations and imprisonment. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister today as to whether this could go further. People may have resigned because they felt that they could not come out; because they were not able to live in the way that they would choose to live. They have still suffered harm. They have been unable to fulfil their full potential, which is genuine harm.

We have spoken about shame and honour in the stories that we have told today. There could be people who wanted their colleagues to preserve their honour to help them not feel ashamed and who wanted to be discharged for stated other reasons, so that nothing in the written record would confirm that they had suffered from the harms for which the flat-rate payment is envisaged, but who have none the less suffered exactly the same harm. I would welcome some clarification on whether you might go wider, and be willing to be challenged—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Please say, “he”.

[Siân Berry]

Sorry. Would the Minister be willing to be challenged on those terms in the future?

This compensation must bring the full comfort and security in older age that is enshrined in the armed forces covenant. It must bring true justice for the community that was shamed so shamefully. These payments must be looked at again.