Debate contribution: The Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 28 January 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

28 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

The Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4763853

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am shocked that the regulations have been brought to the Assembly. I am equally shocked that the Executive agreed to sign off on them, regardless of when that happened. Since the return of Stormont, a growing number of intelligent voices have questioned whether we have the competence to govern. I am deeply concerned that the regulations will give credence to those who suggest that we do not. Although there is a sensible way forward, which I will set out, it is only possible to engage sensibly with the proposed provisions, which increase stakes and prizes, by standing back to ask this question: knowing what we know about Northern Ireland today, is increasing stakes and prizes an appropriate step? In 2016, the Department for Communities conducted the only comprehensive problem gambling prevalence survey that, to my knowledge, it has ever undertaken. The survey results demonstrated a problem gambling rate here that was not just twice, three times or even four times that in England. Members, it was five times that of England. In other words, the people of Northern Ireland — our constituents — were five times more likely to suffer from gambling harm than people in England. Since that time, the UK Government have conducted a further problem gambling prevalence survey that demonstrates that the situation with problem gambling in England has deteriorated further. In that context, if we are to act responsibly, we must adopt a precautionary position and assume that things have similarly deteriorated here in Northern Ireland, unless and until we have robust data to the contrary. What will the proposed provisions do? Today, you have the opportunity to go into a bingo hall or a licensed amusement premises and spend 30p on a gaming machine to play the game once, with the enticement that you might win £25. It was in that context that our problem gambling prevalence figures were five times worse than those of England.

Today, however, we are being asked to sweep that away so that vulnerable people in our constituencies can go into a bingo club or licensed premises and spend £2 to play a gaming machine once with the enticement of winning £500. Therefore, the amount that can be paid increases by a factor of well over six, while the enticement to play increases by a factor of over 20. That is revolutionary, and it is not a far-off event.

Article 1 states:

"This Order ... shall come into operation on the day after the day on which it is affirmed by resolution of the Assembly."

In plain English, that means that, if we vote for the changes today, they will come into effect tomorrow. By Friday, you may find yourself confronting the socially destructive implications of permitting a dramatic increase in stakes and prizes. Members will do so against the backdrop of the knowledge that, the last time the Department looked at the issue, we found that our problem gambling figures — remember that this was on the basis of the old stakes and prizes, not the new ones — were five times those of England. Let us not forget that research demonstrates that gambling machines are 10 times more likely to be located in deprived areas. Other Members may be happy to go to bed tonight having voted for that, but I certainly am not. Of course, I know that the Minister's justification is that the Department conducted a consultation to which consultees responded that stakes and prizes here should be brought into line with those in Great Britain. Some might ask whether it is not odd that I, as a unionist, oppose that. Members, if we are to have competent government, we are required to have regard for more than one thing at a time, and there are two additional considerations that we need to keep in mind when coming to a proper view on the regulations. First, it is important to remember that Northern Ireland is unlike Great Britain in that it does not have a dedicated gambling commission and that the levels of protection afforded to people in Northern Ireland are much lower. In that context, it makes no sense to expose the people of Northern Ireland to higher risk than the people of GB when the people of Northern Ireland are not afforded the same protections. Secondly, those who responded to the consultation did not just say that the stakes and prizes should be in line with those in Great Britain; they said that the gambling industry should pay a levy to help those who suffer from gambling harm. It is striking that, at 65%, support for increased stakes and prizes was lower than support for a gambling levy, which was 84%. On 5 April, the Great Britain Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 will come into effect, taking moneys from the gambling industry to pay for the socially destructive implications of gambling. Thus, while the GB rates applied in the regulations will be provided in the context of the protection afforded by the Gambling Commission and the gambling levy, bringing in between £90 million and £100 million per annum, the same will not be the case for Northern Ireland. Before someone interrupts me to tell me about section 15 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which makes provision for such a levy, let me remind the House of two critical limitations. First, no levy has yet been introduced in Northern Ireland, because the Minister has not commenced the power, let alone sought to use it. Section 17(3) of the 2022 Act states:

"Sections 7, 13, 15 and 16 come into operation on such day or days as the Department for Communities may by order appoint."

To date, the Department has not by order appointed the day on which section 15 will come into operation, let alone produced regulations on the basis of it. Secondly, the section 15 levy is completely unlike the GB levy, because it pertains only to certain forms of terrestrial gambling and does not engage with online gambling at all. If we aspire to govern competently, we must recognise that we cannot blindly seek to bring the risks that face those in Northern Ireland who are vulnerable to gambling harm into line with the risks experienced in Great Britain, knowing full well that the people of Northern Ireland do not enjoy the same protections. Not only that but the people of Northern Ireland will have fewer protections from 5 April 2025 on account of the GB gambling levy. Some might like to stick their head in the sand and pretend that the only relevant point of comparison is stakes and prizes, but the public know that that is not true. What are we going to do about it? I propose that, at the very least, rather than voting to expose some of the most vulnerable people in our society to greater vulnerability tomorrow — we have reason to believe that they are already five times more vulnerable than those in England — we should not pass the legislation today. I propose that we keep it back, and, if it is to pass, that should only be at a time when we can be sure that the people of Northern Ireland are afforded at least the same levels of protection as those of GB. At the very least, we should wait until the Minister has commenced section 15 of the 2022 Act and developed the regulations to give effect to our gambling levy. He could then return to the House with these regulations and the gambling levy regulations on the same day. Until that time, it would be grossly irresponsible for the House to vote on these regulations, let alone approve them.

1,295 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification