Debate contribution: Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- 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 4764115
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion, and I welcome the report of the all-party group on reducing the harm that is related to gambling. I pay tribute to the chair of the APG, Philip McGuigan, who has been so generous with his lived experience. I am sure that that is not a comfortable space to be in, so, thank you, Philip. The report provides a vital road map for addressing gambling as a public health crisis. I will focus on the impact on children and young people. Gambling should absolutely be officially recognised as a public health issue. Similar to other forms of addiction, the harms of gambling extend far beyond the individuals who are involved to their families and communities. A comprehensive public health approach that focuses on the strands of prevention, education, regulation and treatment is essential in mitigating the harm before it escalates to crisis point. The impact of gambling on children and young people is particularly concerning. For example, recent data from the young persons' behaviour and attitudes survey that others have spoken about reveals that 30% of 11-to-17-year-olds have gambled in the past year. Even more troubling is the fact that the most prevalent forms of gambling among that age cohort are those that carry the highest addiction risks, that is, online gambling and fruit and slot machines. The digital age has transformed gambling accessibility, which is exceptionally worrying, given that the legislation governing gambling was introduced in the year that I was born and, as we heard, has not been fully overhauled since. As the APG noted, you do not need to walk into a betting shop any more. You can gamble anonymously and endlessly from your bedroom. Whilst smartphones are often given to children for safety, protection and connectivity, they inadvertently provide easy access to gambling platforms. I have seen it with my children, who, when they have used my tablet, have been given access to games that promote gambling, even when the downloaded apps are classified as age three and over or age five and over. The loot boxes —.
Yes, of course.
I thank the Member. My next point is on loot boxes. The loot boxes that are in video games such as 'Fortnite' and 'Minecraft' have further complicated the issue. Whilst they are not legally classified as gambling, those features share similar psychological mechanisms and have been strongly linked to gambling harm. Several countries have taken action, with Belgium and the Netherlands ruling that certain loot box sales constitute gambling, while China requires gaming companies to disclose their reward probabilities. There is a fine line between gaming and gambling. The consequences of gambling harm extend far beyond financial losses. Research that was published in the 'Lancet Public Health' showed that adults experiencing escalating gambling harm are 2·74 times more likely to attempt suicide. That emphasises the need for routine screening in the healthcare and social services sphere. Education has to play a central role in addressing the crisis, and schools should implement age-appropriate, evidence-based programmes that challenge societal norms, explain addiction and teach critical skills, such as understanding probability. I wonder whether we could see a multi-departmental approach, potentially invoking some of the work of the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. It is something that has young people at its heart, and we need a multi-departmental approach to the issue. A notable omission in the report was the education of parents and guardians. Parents need support to recognise the harm of gambling and to foster open conversations with their children, particularly about the risks of loot boxes and online gambling through gaming platforms. That could be a useful sphere. However, education alone is not sufficient, and the prevention measures must adapt to the digital age. Online gambling platforms implementing stringent age verification processes and facing penalties for breaches would be useful, but, as we have heard, regulation of online gambling remains a significant challenge, particularly in Northern Ireland. We must address the current lack of statutory services for gambling addiction in Northern Ireland. The Minister has heard that before, but he should consider the commissioning of dedicated support services to ensure that treatment is accessible to all, regardless of age, background and postcode. It should not depend on the trust area that you live in. It is not optional; it is an imperative. The harm caused by gambling is preventable, but prevention requires decisive action, particularly for our children and young people. The issue persists because the system currently fails to protect young people, and they are particularly vulnerable because of their impulsivity and developing brains. Therefore, to safeguard their future, we have to implement a comprehensive education programme, strengthen the regulations via the Department for Communities and establish accessible treatment options. We need a multi-departmental approach to create a safer environment for future generations.
805 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 | 0.53 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.41 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.