🎰 Delegated Legislation Committee

• Online Gambling Stake Limits: The Committee discussed the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which aim to introduce statutory maximum stake limits for online slots. Limits would be set at £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over, and £2 for those aged 18 to 24, acknowledging the higher risk of gambling harm among younger adults.

• Growth of Online Slots: Online slots were highlighted as the fastest growing gambling product, contributing significantly to the online gambling market’s £6.9 billion gross gambling yield. The lack of statutory limits until now was noted, given the product’s association with long playing sessions and high levels of use by those experiencing gambling harm.

• Implementation Period: Operators would have a 6-week period to implement the £5 stake limit, followed by an additional 6 weeks to implement the £2 limit for younger adults during a transitional period.

• Casino Modernisation: Concerns were raised about missed opportunities to promote growth and modernisation in the land-based casino sector, including reforms to machine quantities and the introduction of sports betting.

• Black Market Concerns: Some members expressed worry that the new stake limits could potentially fuel growth in the online black market for gambling and called for review mechanisms to monitor this.

• Review of Limits: It was confirmed that the Secretary of State would review the online stake limits within five years of their introduction.

• Statutory Gambling Levy: The draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 were discussed, proposing that all licensed gambling operators pay an annual levy to the Gambling Commission. The levy aims to fund research, prevention, and treatment of gambling harm across Great Britain.

• Levy Rates and Objectives: The levy rates are defined in legislation, and failure to pay could risk an operator’s license. The proposal is seen as a move towards a more sustainable and equitable funding system for tackling gambling-related harm.

• Sector Concerns: There were strong concerns from some committee members about the expanded scope of the levy, particularly affecting smaller operators like independent bookmakers and bingo halls, with potential risks to jobs and community assets.

• Charity and Treatment Funding: Questions were raised about the potential for a short-term drop in voluntary contributions to gambling harm charities due to the shift to a statutory levy system, with fears this could affect treatment availability.

• Future of Research and Prevention: The government’s plans for research and prevention were questioned, with calls for clarity on how the levy funds would be allocated, including the percentages dedicated to research, prevention, and treatment.

• Division on the Voting: The Committee voted on both sets of regulations, with the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and the draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 being agreed to by a majority.

The session displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on the nature and specifics of the proposed regulations, rather than the principle of the policies themselves. Several key points of contention were evident throughout the session, influencing the rating:

1. Stake Limits on Online Slots: There was disagreement on the specific limits proposed. Sir Iain Duncan Smith argued that the £5 limit was too high and suggested it should be adjusted to the same level as the £2 limit for physical gambling shops. He emphasized the potential for increased online gambling harm due to higher stake limits, contrasting with the government’s position, which aimed to balance gambling harm with industry support.

2. Casino Modernisation: Mr Louie French expressed concerns that the current proposals missed an opportunity for broader casino industry growth and modernization, questioning whether previously drafted reforms would be reintroduced. This shows disagreement on the scope and ambition of the government’s approach to the gambling industry’s evolution.

3. Gambling Levy Regulations: The disagreement escalated significantly in the discussions around the draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025. Mr French criticized the government for expanding the scope and increasing the rates, suggesting these changes could negatively impact smaller operators, community assets, and the broader economy. He raised concerns about the potential for job losses and the viability of smaller businesses, indicating a strong disagreement with the policy’s detailed execution.

4. Government Engagement: The level of government engagement was another point of contention. Mr French critiqued the structure of the Minister for Gambling’s role and questioned the government’s willingness to listen to industry concerns, suggesting a lack of dialogue and responsiveness.

5. GambleAware’s Role: Sir Iain Duncan Smith questioned the involvement of GambleAware in future research, highlighting concerns about the organization’s ties to the gambling industry and the need for independent research, indicating disagreement on the governance and oversight of the new levy system.

Despite these disagreements, there was broad support for the overarching goals of tackling gambling-related harm, which emphasized the need for the regulations. The Conservative members, while critical of certain aspects, generally supported the need for action, as evidenced by Sir Iain Duncan Smith’s support for the statutory levy despite his concerns about some of its details.

The division vote at the end, although resulting in approval of the regulations (11 Ayes vs. 4 Noes), further shows a clear divide, justifying the rating of 3. This level reflects that while there was significant disagreement on specific measures and their impacts, there was not a fundamental opposition to the policy objectives themselves.