Debate contribution: Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 28 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4764084
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As friends and colleagues can attest, I have little interest in sport, and I had little experience of gambling until I attended the all-party group on reducing harm related to gambling, which was an eye-opening experience. We have seen evidence of the damage done to people's finances, relationships and health by gambling, and we have heard from families who have lost loved ones to suicide as a result of gambling. It has been heartbreaking at times. Gambling is causing a high level of harm in our communities. As Philip said, 2·3% of the population is at risk, which is 40,000 people. That is a staggering figure. It is clear that we need to act. There are no commissioned treatment services for gambling addiction in our healthcare service. That means that people suffering from gambling disorders here have no access to specialised treatment. Furthermore, capacity in psychiatry and psychology services in general is extremely limited. The Royal College of Psychiatrists told the APG that we were in the midst of a psychiatry workforce crisis. There has been no increase in psychiatry training places in Northern Ireland since 2007, and there are currently only two addiction psychologists across all five healthcare trusts. By contrast, since 2008, NHS England has established 15 specialised gambling clinics, with seven new clinics having opened in the past year as the demand for their services continues to grow. The Minister must address the current unmet need in the healthcare system in Northern Ireland. In the absence of capacity here, the Minister should investigate the possibility of our health service commissioning NHS England to treat people with problem gambling here. NHS England now regularly uses remote treatment. Recent academic research has found that, while it is not as effective as face-to-face treatment, remote treatment for gambling disorders works and may help to circumvent the practical and psychological barriers associated with face-to-face intervention, such as monetary costs, distance, the lack of flexibility, a desire for secrecy, embarrassment and the fear of stigma. Several sources, including the voluntary and community sector, have told the APG that, due to insufficient training, questions related to gambling are not being asked of people who present to addiction services in the healthcare system or the voluntary sector. That means that people with gambling disorders are not being diagnosed correctly and not receiving the support that they need. The Minister should prioritise making training available to GPs, emergency services, social care services and other Health and Social Care (HSC) professionals on issues pertaining to gambling, allowing them to more effectively diagnose, signpost and treat patients presenting with a gambling disorder. Furthermore, screening programmes should be introduced across all Health and Social Care services in Northern Ireland to help to identify and assist problem gamblers who are reluctant to seek support. Members may be aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines now recommend that GPs and healthcare professionals in England look for gambling-related harms, including to health, finances and people around the patient, such as their family and local community, so that that patient can be identified and offered treatment. Given the financial pressures on the healthcare system here, lack of funding remains a significant obstacle to providing treatment. An immediate step that could be taken to fund the specific services for gambling disorders, as well as the much-needed research and prevention measures, is the introduction of a levy on gambling operators.
Such a model is already being introduced in GB, where a statutory levy is to be introduced from April 2025, with 50% of the resulting funds being specifically directed to the purpose of commissioning treatment and support services. I commend the Health Minister for the recent representations that he made, alongside the Minister for Communities and the Minister of Education, to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, asking that Northern Ireland receive a share of that statutory levy. The levy is expected to raise £100 million for research and the prevention and treatment of gambling harms. Currently, it will cover England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland. It is our view that the UK Government have a duty of care to individuals and communities here, who are exposed to marketing by online gambling operators licensed by the Gambling Commission in Britain. We need treatment centres for gambling harms here in Northern Ireland.
727 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.98).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.98 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.68 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.27 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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.