Debate contribution: Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach

Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on 28 January 2025.

MLA

Mr Mike Nesbitt

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

28 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Gambling-related Harms: Public Health Approach

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4764143

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank all the Members who have spoken in the debate. I pay particular thanks to members of the all-party group, not just for the work that they have done on the latest inquiry into public health approaches to tackling gambling but for all the work that they have done since the APG was formed. Previous inquiry reports, numerous evidence sessions and an all-round determination to tackle the harms have been of much support and interest to my Department and to me personally. The first thing that you need to do, if you want to address a problem, is to name it, whether it is cancer, suicide or gambling harms. As other Members have done, I commend Mr McGuigan, because he has named it and so publicly owned his experience. It is clear from the evidence available that problem gambling and gambling addiction are harmful to health. Those harms can be widespread, and they manifest in a number of ways, including mental health issues, substance use, addiction, financial problems, relationship issues, emotional or psychological distress or, indeed, criminal activity. I note the stark findings in Public Health England's 'Gambling-related harms evidence review' in 2021, which said:

"people with gambling disorder have an increased risk of dying from any cause, in a given time period, relative to the general population."

While evidence demonstrates a clear link between problem gambling and mental ill health, the relationship can be complex, with studies showing that gambling can be a coping response to pre-existing mental health problems. At this point, I thank the Minister for Communities and his officials for their efforts thus far and their continued work on legislative reform in Northern Ireland. It is widely documented that gambling legislation here is outdated and does not effectively address the growing issue of the online market. My officials remain engaged with and supportive of their DFC colleagues as that work progresses. That said, the deficit in up-to-date data and evidence on gambling prevalence and associated harms here is well documented. My Department continues to work collaboratively with cross-departmental colleagues to address that. The questions on gambling that were included for the first time in the young person's behaviour and attitudes survey and the Northern Ireland health survey will help, and the results of the latter are expected imminently. I have been informed that the Department for Communities has commissioned an updated gambling prevalence survey, the first of its kind since 2016. I hope that those results and the ongoing programme of work will help us to fully understand the extent of gambling in our population and the harms associated with it. That will allow us to make informed decisions about potential policy progression and/or treatments in that area. Our approach to gambling-related harm must continue to be collaborative, departmentally and across the sector, and to engage key stakeholders to ensure that, moving forward, our decision and policymaking will have the right outcomes for those who need them most. My officials will continue to do that, facilitated by the cross-departmental working group on tackling gambling harms, and they will remain engaged. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I thank the Members who tabled the motion and, more widely, the members of the APG for their recent inquiry report and its recommendations, which I welcome. My officials carried out scoping work following the recommendations contained in the first inquiry report, 'The Future Regulation of Gambling in Northern Ireland'. We intend to review policy options following the latest inquiry's recommendations. I hope that that work, alongside the updated data and evidence work that is being undertaken, will put us in a position where my cross-departmental colleagues and I can make decisions that will lead to the start of real progress in the area, learning from previous approaches taken in similar areas where there is harm to health, such as tobacco and alcohol, as mentioned in the motion. I note the issue that the motion raises about gambling-related marketing. As Members know, the regulation of gambling advertising is a reserved matter. I feel, however, that we must continue to address the correlation between advertising and gambling-related harms. Therefore, last September, the Minister for Communities, the Minister of Education and I sent a joint letter to the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. We noted the lack of a recommendation in the published UK Government White Paper of an outright ban on gambling advertising. We further sought engagement and involvement in any potential consideration of a change of direction in that approach following the general election. We are keen to have closer and stronger collaboration on enforcing gambling advertising regulation between, first, the relevant statutory bodies in Northern Ireland and, secondly, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Gambling Commission in GB. In the letter, we also raised a concern about Northern Ireland's exclusion from a share of the funds raised through the proposed statutory GB levy, to which many Members have referred. Following a response from Baroness Twycross, the Minister for Gambling, we were assured that any actions taken would consider the implications for Northern Ireland, including engagement with Ministers as necessary. Cross-departmental officials have recently engaged with relevant colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to further discuss and explore the issues, including the levy, and how collaborative working between the nations can be maximised with a view to improving outcomes for those who need them.

On the motion and the current lack of statutory services that are dedicated to supporting those with problem gambling or gambling addiction needs, while I would like to say that support may be available through existing pathways for those with coexisting substance use or mental health needs, I note that we have some way to go to match the current gambling-specific treatment models that are available in some neighbouring jurisdictions. I also note the support that is offered through our community and voluntary sector to which our statutory service will signpost. That valuable work does not go unnoticed and it is greatly appreciated. That said, if we are adopting a public health approach to gambling, my Department will have a role in the commissioning of gambling support and treatment services in Northern Ireland. In line with the usual process for commissioning services, any decision to commission bespoke gambling treatment services will need to be based on an assessment of the level of demand for services in order to create a fuller understanding of the population need here and in the context of future budget availability. I am hopeful that the work that was discussed earlier in that space will allow us to review that from a more informed position. It is clear that funding for new services that are aimed at the prevention and/or treatment of gambling harm must not come from core health and social care funding. Mental health and addiction services are already challenged by the adequacy of the resources that are available to respond to the needs of the population. As Members will be aware, significant reductions will be required in my Department to contain existing resource expenditure, and funding pressures will need to be considered and prioritised alongside other demand pressures for available funding. Funding for gambling harm services should be clearly seen as new or additional funding that does not, in any way, disadvantage core mental health and addiction services and their service users. As part of the scoping work, my officials have had some sight of potential high-level indicative treatment models for Northern Ireland that could be considered, taking into consideration the issues that I have outlined as well as training requirements for those who may be delivering the services. I am also grateful for the support that has been offered by the APG members and experts from other jurisdictions on what those services could look like. I finish my formal remarks by reiterating my acknowledgement that gambling can, indeed, be harmful to health and that there is work to be done in Northern Ireland to understand the prevalence, the implications and the population needs in relation to that. My Department would have a key role to play in adopting a public health approach to gambling. If that approach is taken, however, in order to be truly successful in tackling harms and to deliver what is needed, it is vital that such an approach is cross-departmental and collaborative. My Department will closely consider the recommendations in the APG report as part of any policy development and will continue to engage with the relevant colleagues and stakeholders as required, including members of the all-party group. Finally, there was a direct plea from the leader of the Opposition to insert something in the Programme for Government. I say to the Member, respectfully, that it is not for me to adapt the draft Programme for Government. Rather, any changes should be as a result of the analysis of the responses to the consultation on the draft Programme for Government. On that basis, I ask whether the SDLP has responded to the consultation in the terms that the Member outlined. If he can do that in 10 seconds, he is in.

I thank the Member for that frank response.

1,538 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification