Debate contribution: Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 28 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4764135
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I cannot quite believe that we are here, debating this motion, just after the House, before lunch, voted to increase the gambling stakes and prizes of gambling machines, without even introducing any balancing protections. People will smell more than a whiff of hypocrisy as they consider our actions today, just as they will be forced to question our competence. On 5 April, the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 will come into effect in GB and are expected to raise between £90 million and £100 million per annum to help those experiencing gambling harm in GB.
Why are we not demonstrating the same commitment to hold the gambling industry to account? It damages our constituents, as demonstrated by GB. That is a pressing question because, as I have said before, the only really thorough assessment of gambling harm in Northern Ireland was the Department for Communities' problem gambling survey of 2016, which demonstrated that the problem gambling rate here is five times that in England.
The Minister has the power to introduce a levy, but he has not used his powers under section 17(3) of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to commence the regulation-making power. Even if he did that, we would still have a problem, because the section 15 levy engages only certain forms of terrestrial gambling. That is a huge problem for two reasons. First, today, gambling is done more online. More than half of gross gambling yield comes from online gambling. Secondly, the problem-gambling prevalence figures associated with online gambling are significantly higher than those associated with terrestrial gambling. If you look at the GB Gambling Levy Regulations — I have a copy here — you will see that they expressly apply to both terrestrial and online gambling and that the levy is charged at a significantly higher rate on online gambling firms. The reason why Northern Ireland is not covered by the new legislation is supposedly that gambling is a devolved matter. In truth, however, while there is no Assembly legislation covering online gambling, there is Westminster legislation that engages with it. Section 5 of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 protects Northern Ireland consumers from exposure to online gambling websites that do not have Gambling Commission licences — the same as in Great Britain. Thus, in practice, the Gambling Commission is more the regulator of online gambling in Northern Ireland than anyone else. In that context, it would make more sense to ask the UK Government to amend the regulation-making power that has given rise to the Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 and to collect the part of the levy pertaining to online gambling in Northern Ireland. If we do not do that, we must move immediately to pass primary legislation to introduce a Northern Ireland levy that engages with online as well as terrestrial gambling. In doing so, however, we must be mindful of the need to provide comparable help to those suffering from gambling harm in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible. With that in mind, I question whether it is really practical and efficient for the smallest part of the UK to engage with the online gambling providers. I suspect that it would be better dealt with by the Gambling Commission. Obviously, it would require a change in UK legislation, but, if we do not have the capacity to deal with online gambling ourselves, we need to be honest about that. We also need to have a conversation with the UK Government, because, on 7 January, they said that they cannot guarantee that someone who self-excludes under the multi-operator self-exclusion mechanism to help those experiencing gambling harm in an online context will be excluded in Northern Ireland. The Government said that they can still self-exclude but that, unlike in GB, they cannot guarantee that self-exclusion will always be honoured in Northern Ireland. That leaves the part of the UK with the highest problem gambling prevalence figures as the least protected in relation to the form of gambling associated with generating the greatest difficulty.
675 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | 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 | 0.87 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.09 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.