Member's statement: Gambling
Member's statement by Mr Philip McGuigan on .
- MLA
- Mr Philip McGuigan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 13 May 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Gambling
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4947465
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Department for Communities recently published the gambling prevalence survey for the North. The survey shows that 3% of our population are experiencing severe gambling-related harms, a further 10% are considered low- or moderate-risk gamblers, and approximately one in seven adults who participated in gambling here in the past 12 months said that they had, at least sometimes, bet more than they could afford to lose. About one in eight said that they needed to gamble larger amounts to get the same feeling of excitement, and just under one in 12 of those surveyed said that gambling had caused health problems, including stress and anxiety. Clearly, gambling can have a wider impact in money loss, and that can affect families and communities, with 10% of people reporting that their relationship with someone close, such as a spouse, partner, family member or friend, had broken down because of someone's gambling. It is concerning that, despite the depressing figures that I have just quoted, the research also found that only 1% of people who gamble have sought help, support or information from a gambling support service or mental health services. That clearly shows that there is an unmet need for gambling treatment services here in the North. The Minister of Health must urgently move to commission treatment services for gambling addiction. Given existing pressures on addiction services, additional funding is required to provide those suffering from gambling-related harms with the support that they need and deserve. Therefore, the Minister for Communities needs to introduce a gambling industry levy on land-based operators here without delay. It is also disappointing, though not surprising, to see that the North has a significantly higher rate of problem gambling than Britain. The British Government must do more to protect our population from gambling-related harm. The North does not receive any of the money raised from the statutory levy on online gambling operators introduced by the British Government on 6 April to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms. That is despite the fact that online gambling operators here profit from gamblers in the North, and those same operators, licensed by Britain's Gambling Commission, are allowed to freely advertise here in the North where our population receives none of the regulatory protection afforded to those in Britain. Ministers need to step up their efforts to ensure that the North receives its fair share of the levy on online gambling companies. The gambling prevalence survey also showed that two thirds of our people believe that there are too many gambling advertisements, and 71% supported a watershed for TV and radio gambling advertisements. The British Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport should urgently use her existing powers to introduce tighter restrictions on gambling advertising, including a watershed, to protect people here from gambling-related harms.
467 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: 0.07 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.82 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.11 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:33 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.