Gambling: Regulatory Reform

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I suggest eight minutes to start? I call Gareth Snell.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will not need that long, Sir Desmond, don’t worry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing the debate. After the recent Budget, it is a timely moment to discuss how we regulate the gambling sector in this country, and what that means both for taxation as a way of regulating and for regulation itself.

I will be up front: I come to this debate from a slightly different position. The single largest employer in my constituency is bet365, which employs 5,500 people in some of the high-value jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, and there will be job-loss implications as a result of the Budget. I am not here to plead the case of bet365; the company will do that itself. I also have no interest to declare, because I have never taken any hospitality or financial support from it. However, it is important to put it on the record that there are always consequences to the way that we regulate companies, and real people will lose their jobs as a result of the decisions that this House will presumably take later this evening.

As a result of that constituency interest, I have had to do some rapid learning in this area. I have genuinely had to consider and understand how we do regulation in a way that is good. I am a firm believer that regulation should genuinely be a force for making things better. In this country, we often pull the regulation lever when we see something bad, because we think that regulating can solve it. Sometimes that regulation works; sometimes it does not.

Not all 62 recommendations in the White Paper have been implemented. I think that everyone would agree that there are things that have been identified and worked on with the sector that need to be implemented, and implemented more quickly, so that the full package of actions that was determined as being necessary for better regulation of the sector is implemented. There is a cost to the sector from that, and a cost that often gets passed on to consumers.

The other issue, which I will touch on later, is how we do regulation in a way that does not drive people into the unregulated sector. I think we would all accept that one of the huge challenges we face, not just in gambling but in a whole host of other areas, is that access to the unregulated sector is becoming easier. I would wager that every single one of us has a smartphone in our pocket and, within a couple of clicks, can be in a highly unregulated gambling environment that does not subscribe to any of the normal social protections that have been put in place for the big regulated industries.

Quite often, consumers do not know whether they are in a regulated sector or an unregulated sector. Those in the unregulated sector have larger cash-outs and better odds, because they are not restricted in how they conduct their operations and frequently they are headquartered far away, in much more favourable tax regimes, so none of the tax they pay comes to the UK at all. However, consumers will not know that. They will not really know from looking at a website on their phone whether or not they are in a regulated sector.

We must change that. We have to find a way of making sure that if someone in this country is choosing, as 22 million people do each year, to access to gaming or gambling, they know that they are doing it somewhere where they will get protection and security, and that the lockouts are there so that, if they need to access help, they can get it. At the moment, too many people do not. Too many people in this country are able to access unregulated gambling services that bleed them dry and take them for everything they have got, leading to the social harms that the hon. Member for Witney rightly referred to.

Regardless of where we sit in this debate—we might be avid gamblers who enjoy doing so regularly; as it happens, I do not gamble myself, other than perhaps on the Grand National once a year, because I did it with my grandad 20 years ago and it is a fond memory—we all want to make gambling safer and to ensure that it operates within a system that is regulated, secure and provides the help and support that people want. That is where I am trying to come from with my comments today.

We all have constituents who enjoy gambling, but we all have constituents for whom gambling is a problem, and fundamentally we must take action to support them. I was heartened to see the written ministerial statement that the Minister recirculated today about the amount raised through the statutory gambling levy. There are genuine questions that we need to answer about who will get that money in order to provide support services. I think that £120 million has been raised since April, yet, other than a couple of large organisations, there is not really clarity about who will receive that funding. That needs to be sorted out very quickly, because there are people who need that help and support who are not getting it.

There is also work that we need to do to ensure that some of the provisions in the review that took place previously are properly implemented. I welcome the fact that we have things such as the whistle-to-whistle ad ban, so that there is no advertising of gambling while sports matches are happening. Stoke City, who are sponsored by bet365, are currently fourth in the championship. They might get promoted to the premier league, at which point they would have to think about their sponsorship arrangements, because they would not be able to have their shirts sponsored by a gambling company; that is something the sector has signed up to. I really hope that Stoke get promoted—it has been a long time since we were in the premier league—but if they have to make that change, there will be a cost to both the football club and the company in my constituency.

More work could probably be done around the seventh industry code for socially responsible advertising. The mandate is for someone to be over 25, unless there is the targeting technology to do it specifically to over-18s, but I freely accept that there is leakage in that. How we tighten that to ensure that under-18s are not exposed to gambling adverts, as part of the code that the sector has signed up to, is important. I am the father of a 15-year-old who has access to myriad social media apps. There are many I do not like but I have lost the battle. I am confident that she is able to make some decisions for herself, but I know that there will be other young people who will be more attracted to that.

We need to think about what the Gambling Commission is able to do. The Office for Budget Responsibility report, on the back of the tax changes this week, says it expects to see some leakage into the black market. As a result, the Treasury must allocate £26 million to the Gambling Commission to try to resolve that possible movement—a £500 million reduction in yield due to that leakage. We must think about that. If the social and behavioural change caused by regulation and taxation pushes more people into the black market, we must be cognisant of that consequence of our actions and think how to prevent it.

We also need to think about how to ensure that more people do not try to access riskier, higher-value games—I am thinking about games rather than sports betting in that instance, because the 40% rate of the remote gaming duty will mean that some companies will remove products from the market and shrink their offer, and that gap will be filled by others who do not take it so seriously. We have to think about the social consequences of that.

I did say I would not take eight minutes; I have barely 30 more seconds. It is almost certain that next week we will put through the tax changes announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, so this debate is timely in allowing us to explore those issues. We now need a regular reporting mechanism, which I hope the Minister will consider. Significant parts of the White Paper have still not been implemented; those parts that have been implemented have had only 18 months to bed in, and now we have a new tax regime, which means that people will move towards the black market.

We must measure and deal with that, to combat abuse by nefarious gaming organisations that work outside the regulated market and inflict harm. We collectively cannot allow that to happen. We need to be clear that the more we regulate and tax an industry that wants to be part of the solution, the easier we potentially make that move towards an unregulated market.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Lee Dillon. It seems he is not here, so I call Cameron Thomas.