Debate contribution: Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach
Debate contribution by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 28 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4764109
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the APG on reducing harm related to gambling for tabling the cross-party motion. I will speak in my capacity as a Sinn Féin MLA. Some of my remarks will be informed by my role as Chair of the Committee for Communities. As the proposer of the motion set out in his remarks, the North has a higher prevalence of problem gambling than any other jurisdiction on these islands. As the chair of the APG said, the most recent gambling prevalence survey showed that 2·3% of the population — 40,000 people — were impacted on. Given that that survey was nine years ago, we can assume that the figure now is worse. The motion calls for gambling to be treated as a health issue, similar to alcohol and tobacco, as it is in New Zealand and various other countries. A public health approach is vital if we are to make any serious impact on reducing the harm that is related to gambling. Many of us in the Chamber will know someone who has suffered harm as a result of problem gambling. Addiction to gambling can push victims into serious financial difficulty, debt or bankruptcy. It can cause relationships to break down and employment to be terminated. It is also directly linked to a host of physical and health conditions, including depression and anxiety. As well as treating gambling-related harm as a public health issue, the regulatory framework around the gambling industry needs a complete overhaul. Our current gambling laws are outdated and no longer fit for purpose. The current legislation dates back to the 1980s and takes no account of online gambling, which is the most common form of gambling today. We need to ensure that the North has an appropriate and effective regulatory framework around our gambling laws. Often, it is said that overhauling our gambling laws would involve passing the largest piece of legislation ever seen in the Assembly and would require a full mandate to get passed. That is all the more reason to ensure that the necessary preparatory work is being carried out now, so that an incoming Minister, whoever that is, will be in a position to hit the ground running with legislation early in the next mandate. I have to say, speaking with insight from my role as Chair of the Communities Committee, that I was slightly concerned during a recent evidence session with Department for Communities officials to hear them say that two or three people in the Department are working in the area of gambling reform. Clearly, a Bill of such magnitude would require a fully staffed and dedicated team. It is important that the correct resources are in place to carry out that vital piece of work now in readiness to move quickly at the start of the next mandate. In addition to proper staffing, there are other things that the Minister could, and should, progress in this mandate, such as a levy on the gambling industry. Recently, the British Government announced that they plan to introduce a levy on gambling companies in England, with the revenue generated being directed towards research, education and treatment of gambling-related harms.
It seems only fair that companies that perpetuate gambling-related harm against vulnerable people take some responsibility for enabling the care and treatment of those who are adversely affected and for reducing that harm.
The online gambling industry has been aptly described as the Wild West, in that there appears to be little, if any, effective regulation. The North remains the only region on these islands without an independent regulator to hold gambling companies to account. There remains a degree of confusion about what, if any, jurisdiction the Gambling Commission in Britain has over the North, given that online telecommunications are a reserved matter. It is a concern that, in the absence of an independent regulator here, up-to-date data and information on the actual levels of harm are not being gathered and reported on more frequently. As other Members mentioned, those harms and their prevention need to be tackled across government, including by Health in supporting treatment of addictions, by Education in prevention and by Communities in regulation. It is incumbent on us in the House to do better to join together in support of those in our communities who are affected by gambling-related harms. Once again, I thank the members of the APG for tabling the motion.
735 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.57 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.11 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.06 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
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.