Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): I welcome Peter Keogh, Charles Richie and Barry Fennell from Gambling with Lives (GWL), who will provide us with evidence. I will give you 10 minutes to make your presentation, and we will then go to members' questions.

Mr Peter Keogh (Gambling with Lives): Thank you very much. Can you hear me OK?

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): We can.

Mr Keogh: Lovely. Thank you very much for the invitation to address the Committee on the preparation of new legislation to ensure that the gambling industry is properly regulated and controlled and that the public are in no doubt that gambling is a very addictive recreation that can lead to all sorts of family crises and, increasingly, as we at GWL know only too well, to death.

We very much welcome the introduction of the Bill, which is long overdue. The current legislation is from 1985, which was way before there were mobile phones or anything like that, so it has long been outdated. We see the Bill as being only the first part of a more comprehensive package of controls for the industry.

Research that I have looked at suggests that, in 2020, 84% of adults had a mobile phone. For 16-to-24-year-olds, the proportion increased to 98%. To go further with that statistic, if you substitute the word "mobile" with "casino" to see the number of potential gamblers we have, you can see how ubiquitous gambling opportunities are. At GWL, we say that legislation to control online gambling is urgently required. That might be a UK-wide measure that has to be done centrally from Westminster.

Looking at the Bill, we are very much in favour of the mandatory levy across the industry. Although legislators at Westminster are talking about 1% of gross turnover, because we in Northern Ireland are very much behind the curve on treatment facilities and have the highest rate of addiction across the UK, we feel that that should be increased to 3%. There are specialist centres across GB, but all we have are a minimal facility at Dunlewey, which is off the Antrim Road, and a convent in Newry that offers some help. As everyone says, we need to look at this as a public health issue. We must look at funding in such a way as to provide proper help for our young and not-so-young people who have been afflicted by the addiction.

We have one slight worry about the Bill as it stands, which is the idea of opening betting shops on a Sunday. I am not a Lord's Day observance person by any stretch of the imagination, but I have never heard any lobby say, "We should have betting shops open on Sunday. We really miss that one day of the week". Six days a week is more than enough for a betting shop to be open, so I wonder whether we need to do that.

Jack Gibson mentioned most of the issues that I have come across, but I will finish with this point: there is a need for new legislation. The legislation is only as good as the operational structures that are put in place with it. To that end, we need to look at what we have in GB, which is an ombudsman and the Gambling Commission. Both of those need to be appointed here as soon as possible, either now or in the second tranche. Someone said earlier that we could include that in the Bill, but the funding for that needs to be taken from the 3% that we will get from the gambling companies. Only by having the regulatory bodies in place can we ensure that the legislation will be properly enacted. We can make all the rules that we want, but, if there is no one to make sure that they are being properly enacted, can it ever happen properly.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): Thank you very much.

Mr Keogh: If you have any questions, please go ahead.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): We certainly do. My first question follows on from what you just said about the creation of an independent regulator and an independent ombudsman. You mentioned that they could be funded through the introduction of the levy, and you talked about the percentage that the levy should be. The elephant in the room is online gambling companies. Would that 3% be enough to fund a regulator that has enough powers to do what we need it to do and to provide addiction services?

Mr Keogh: My answer to that involves a bit of prevarication. Essentially, I do not know, but we have to start somewhere. A 1% levy is nowhere near enough to provide us with the funds that we need to set up a body that must oversee complaints from the public and premises that are not acting properly within the regulations. A whole network of people and systems needs to be set up. Who knows what the right amount is? It might need to be 5%, but I have no doubt that the industry, which brought in £14·5 billion in 2020 across the UK, should be responsible for funding it. It is causing the need for us to re-educate and to provide treatment for people who suffer from the addiction. Those people must be seen, and it must not be seen as a "donation". That word was used earlier, and it rankled with me. It is a levy, and it needs to be taken in the proper fashion from them. Those people are taking money from the public — they cause illness and whatever else — so they need to pay for control of that and for the education of our children throughout schools to ensure that they know exactly what is out there. We are not an anti-gambling charity by any stretch of the imagination, but we want people to know what is out there and what damage can be caused.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): Peter, we have heard evidence that the levy could be based on profits and have a tiered approach, or it could be based on the "polluter pays" principle, where higher levy rates are charged against industry sectors associated with higher levels of gambling-related harm. You mentioned the 3%, but do you have any thoughts on that? Should the parts of the industry that cause more harm pay more?

Mr Keogh: I go back to the problem we have at the minute: how do you impose a levy? I do not know the answer. There are 98% of young people who have a mobile phone, and that is where most of the gambling is done today. That is where most of our younger addicts are groomed. They start playing games like Fortnite when they are 8, 9 or 10 years of age. They then progress, and they may win something going out at lunchtime and having a gamble standing at the school corner. That is where it happens. I am not sure about the best way to impose the levy; it may take better brains than mine. However, we need to have a major levy on the online industry, because it is awash with money.

Mr Charles Richie (Gambling with Lives): When we talk about the levy, it is a levy that is focused on funding research, education and treatment rather than the funding of the central costs of a commission. The commission is another issue that needs to be addressed. Jack Gibson was very good in pointing the Committee to the position in New Zealand with the so-called smart levy. There is a huge amount of information available internationally about what the most destructive forms of gambling are. A smart levy does not look at a very sophisticated breakdown by individual machine type. My understanding is that in New Zealand, they have about four categories of gambling: it is essentially machine gambling, casinos, racing and lotteries. You are looking at something where there is plenty of information to effectively identify the key areas that should be paying more because they cause the greatest harm. As Jack said, that is part of the incentive process to change the way that certain sectors of the industry operate.

Mr Keogh: I entirely agree with you, Charles. The word "donation" was used a couple of times earlier in the meeting. This is not about a donation; this is about a gambling industry that is awash with money paying for the damage that it does. It is a simple as that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): Thank you very much. I will ask another question, and then members will have the opportunity to come in.

This might be a difficult question. We have heard evidence about the tiered approach, but I draw your attention to those gaming machines. They have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling, and that has been overestimated. What is your response to that?

Mr Keogh: Charles, do you want to take that one?

Mr Richie: Happy to. The story of the Gambling with Lives families absolutely emphasises just how toxic those machines are. The situation about the legality of the so-called fixed odds betting terminals and the restrictions around them may be less clear in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK. Internationally, the figures for the UK show that the addiction and at-risk rates on fixed odds betting terminals were over 50%. These are not safe machines, by any stretch. When you look at the same machines online, you are still looking at addiction and at-risk rates approaching 50%. Jack talked through the features of different gambling products that make them dangerous, and he was absolutely spot-on with the key one being speed of play, or the time between effectively placing your bet and getting the result. I do not think the addictiveness of those machines has been overestimated in any respect at all.

The other message from Gambling with Lives families is about addictions starting young. By young, I do not necessarily mean as young as 11; we are talking about people still being young at the age of 25. Lots of neuroscience research indicates how plastic the brain remains until people are in their mid-20s. You have highly addictive machines being played by highly vulnerable people. I emphasise that, by "vulnerable people", I do not mean people who have mental health conditions or whatever; I mean young people. Young people are vulnerable people when it comes to gambling.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): Members, indicate if you want to come in. My final question, before I bring in Mark, is about the under-18s. Under health and safety legislation, you have to take extra care and responsibility for any person under 18 who comes to work in your premises. If, when thinking about this legislation, we are to take extra care, surely it will be meaningless without effective enforcement if, for instance, a person under 18 is playing a gaming machine. Who should that enforcement fall to?

Mr Richie: Peter, perhaps you are best placed to comment on that.

Mr Keogh: The current legislation has not set up a gambling commissioner or an ombudsman. There has to be a regulatory body somewhere that goes around looking at these problems all the time. However, the owner has to be charged with a certain amount of responsibility. I can talk about what I saw yesterday in my hometown of Enniskillen when I was out for a meal. There were kids in the restaurant, and there was a gambling machine sitting right beside them, and they could see what was going on. That sort of thing should not be allowed. It is just not the way that gambling should be controlled. We talk about a regulatory body and imposing a levy. These should be the funds that, we hope, lead to having proper enforcement. At various Committee meetings, we have talked about the role of the PSNI, but it has made it fairly clear, by sitting on its hands, that it does not see going around and policing betting establishments as part of its role. That is for a regulatory body to decide and to use the funding appropriately. A number of officials will have to be put in place whose job is specifically to look at the management of those things.

Mr Richie: Absolutely. In GB, responsibility for identifying underage gambling sits with local licensing authorities. Pardon my ignorance, but I am not sure what the situation is in Northern Ireland. It is something that absolutely requires resources. A question was asked, I think, two years ago, about how many local authorities had effectively made unscheduled licensing visits to test how well companies and shops were doing. It was a staggeringly low proportion. So, as I am sure many have said, and as you said, Chair, there has to be proper enforcement to make any of this meaningful in any way.

Mr Keogh: It is fair to say that we do not have all of the answers, but we have to set in place the ground areas upon which we can build. We have to have certain regulations in place. I know that it will get more difficult as we look at online gambling, but we have to have rules in place for the bricks-and-mortar establishments, and we have to look at how we are going to monitor the regulation of those. We are not going to have all of the money that we need to have officers who are going to go round looking at all of the race meetings and whatever else, but we have to start somewhere. We have to at least put a body in place that has the powers to do that, if we can find the funding. To me, there is only one place to find the funding, and that is from the people who are causing the problem. Therefore, if we have to increase a levy, we increase it. We must police it properly, and I do not mean by the PSNI but by a regulatory body.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the gents for the presentation and submission. It was very useful. I apologise; I used the term "donation" in the previous session, but I fully accept that it is more than just a donation; it is a contribution and a recognition of the harm that gambling causes.

I do not know whether you guys were listening to the previous sessions. You may have heard that, at the end, I raised the issue of scratch cards. I have an itch now that I need to scratch. Do you have a view on how much of a risk is posed by scratch cards, which are so readily available and in-your-face in so many outlets across the country?

Mr Richie: I will start, Peter. The international evidence shows that things like scratch cards are highly addictive. Effectively, it goes back to the characteristics of different products as to how addictive they are. If gambling was just a weekly draw on the National Lottery, none of us would be here discussing this at all. An issue with the National Lottery and scratch cards is the move away from that relatively benign form of gambling, the weekly lottery, to instant win products. You are absolutely right, and, again, there is a reasonable evidence base that shows that things like scratch card spending happen more in more deprived areas. That is absolutely the case, and it is the same with the location of bookies etc. There is a targeting of certain sections of the population with the most addictive products.

You mentioned whether those dangerous products should be there at point of sale. We all know the pressures, as a parent, when your child is with you saying, "Oh, that looks fun" and all that sort of stuff. The more responsible supermarkets have moved sweets away from the counters. We should be in the same situation whereby we do that for those highly addictive products. Cigarettes are now not allowed to be displayed; they are in a locked cabinet. I agree that we need to have those sorts of products which are highly addictive much more regulated when it comes to how they are sold.

Mr Durkan: So you are supportive of any move to have better controls on that and to reduce the visibility of scratch cards

less attractive for people to buy on impulse in the way that they do? You have to be over 18 to go into a bookie's shop or a casino or even to go online. You have to want to do that or to make the conscious decision to do it, but, with scratch cards, people cannot avoid going to the shops for a pint of milk or, as I was saying, to top up their electricity or whatever. That is when they are getting caught and hooked.

In between evidence sessions, I was on Google a wee bit. You were chatting about the move away from the draw-based games to these sort of instant win games. For the draw-based games, the National Lottery contributes 31% of sale takings to good causes, but, for the instant win games, it is closer to 9%. I saw in an article from a few years ago in 'The Guardian' that Camelot attributed that to the cost of producing the scratch cards, which shows how much effort and investment it puts into making those things more attractive to people to buy.

Mr Richie: Absolutely. I am sure that you are aware that the National Lottery relicensing process is under way at the moment, and I believe there should be an announcement of a new operator in February. I probably should not comment on this, but I do think that Camelot has moved away from its basic product towards developing other products in order to keep its revenues up. That has two disadvantages: one, as you say, they contribute much less per pound spent, and, two, they are far more dangerous products. We have this catch-22; a terrible vicious circle of more and more addictive products being developed in order to keep up levels of revenue, but which are much less generous with the amount of money that ever ends up being used for good causes.

Mr Keogh: What you have said, Mark, might be the way to go. They are addictive products, so put them behind the counter, beside the cigarettes, and not at the front of the counter. Maybe we should put the sweets back. I know why the sweets were taken away: they are bad for children's teeth, blah, blah, blah. If we are going to sell those things, let us control them properly and put them in a place where they are not easily accessible so that you have to come in and say, "Can I have one of those scratch cards in your locked cupboard?" It would much safer to do it that way.

Mr Richie: When it comes to public understanding, public health messaging and all of the warnings around things like scratch cards and gambling, I do not think that most people would be happy that 10p of their pound spent, or whatever it is, goes to charity, and meanwhile the misery and devastation that is caused by that as a way of raising money continues. That is not what we all signed up to; it is not what everyone was thinking when they thought about a national lottery. They were not thinking of peddling highly addictive products to the general public.

Mr Durkan: The thing is, we are seeing a phasing-out of the £1 scratch cards; they are harder to get.

Mr Richie: Totally.

Mr Durkan: OK, thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): Thank you very much, gentlemen. No one else is indicating at this stage. Thank you so much for your presentation today, which was very worthwhile. I met some of you at the Gambling with Lives event in the Long Gallery. As we consider this Bill, it is vital that we consider the outcomes of gambling harm. I know that you ensure that the Committee is kept abreast of that, so thank you for that. We will not be speaking to you again before Christmas, so I wish you and yours a very happy Christmas and a safe and well 2022. We will leave it there for now. If we have other information that we need to glean from you —.

The Committee Clerk: Stephen Dunne has raised his hand.

Ms Armstrong: I apologise; just before I was going to say goodbye, Stephen Dunne has raised his hand. I will bring you in for a couple of minutes, Stephen.

Mr Dunne: Thanks, Chair. Just briefly, I thank the gentlemen for their presentation and their submission. I concur with the points particularly around the rise in online gambling and its accessibility. There are no age restrictions, compared with a physical bookmakers on our high streets and in our town centres. The key point is that there are no closing times with online gambling, which is so prevalent.

In your submission, particularly around the secondary stage, you talked about education and awareness in secondary schools, and you said that:

That is quite alarming. Can you touch a wee bit more on that? If it barely features at GCSE level, I presume that there is very little education and awareness at primary level. Given the age prevalence of gambling and the accessibility of online gambling, I would be keen to tease that out a bit more, if possible. Also, I commend the good work that you are doing to raise awareness. I am a relatively new MLA, but I am becoming more and more aware of the good work that you are doing, and I encourage you to keep it up.

Mr Richie: Thank you, Stephen. Perhaps it would be appropriate for us to get Barry to say a couple of words. By way of introduction, we absolutely believe that it is a priority to raise awareness amongst young people. There is an issue around what age that should start at and how it happens. We need people to understand. It is a bit like smoking 20 or 30 years ago; the level of public knowledge about how damaging cigarettes are was very low, whereas now, you could ask a six-year-old and they will tell you that smoking kills. What reaction would we get if we asked a set of people about how dangerous gambling is? There is a huge educational effort there. We have to stress the need for that to be independent of the industry. We have to learn from the tobacco playbook. We have to learn from big pharma as to how it manages public perception and education and training around tobacco, opioids etc. One of the reasons for the need for the levy is to provide funding so that the education that is delivered to our children is independent and gives the full range of messages.

Barry, would you like to say a little bit about what we are doing?

Mr Barry Fennell (Gambling with Lives): Yes. Can you hear me OK?

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): Yes, we can.

Mr Fennell: I am the programme manager for Gambling with Lives in Northern Ireland. I totally agree with you: raising awareness amongst young people is very important. We are embarking on a pilot project. I have been working in a number of schools — not huge numbers, I must say, but it is an opportunity for us to test out the materials, to get young people talking about the topic, to interact with young people and to work closely with teachers. Ultimately, we want it to be a proper area of study as part of the curriculum here. Our understanding is that the exams council here does not have gambling awareness as a stand-alone programme or area. We are very keen to explore and develop that. Our obligation at the moment, Stephen, and anybody who is listening, is that we are engaging and working with young people, and we are providing information. As my colleagues have said, this is completely independent. It has been designed and developed by those with lived experience of gambling, gambling addiction and gambling harms. It is independent from the industry, as we mentioned. We feel that we are providing the full picture to young people. If we do not have the answers, we try our best to find out what they are at a particular time. So far, the reactions and responses from young people have been very encouraging. As I said, we are testing out a range of activities that not just inform but engage and challenge young people. It gets young people thinking about this, because it is a very important area and topic to discuss.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): Folks, I am going to have to move the presentation on. We are very limited with time, and I do not want to run out of time with you guys. Barry, if you have any outcomes from the education programmes that confirm for the Committee how effective they are, we would be very happy to receive them in writing, perhaps in January. That would really help us.

Mr Fennell: Yes, we can certainly provide some feedback to you. The pilot programme is being independently evaluated at the minute, so we can share with you some of the early findings and recommendations.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): That would be perfect.

Ciara, I know that your hand is up, but, unless you can do something very quickly, I need to move on; otherwise, we will not have time for the session on the COVID fund for charities and social enterprises.

Ms Ferguson: I have just one question about safeguarding children and adults at risk. Maybe Barry can follow it up. Have you done any work on a safeguarding policy for the industry?

Mr Fennell: Yes, we have a safeguarding policy in place; obviously, we are accessing schools, and I am working with young people. What is it specifically that you are —?

Ms Ferguson: What about one to be included in a code of practice, for instance? Has any work been done? It is obviously something that Kevin Higgins brought up with regard to a safeguarding policy for the actual gambling industry. Are you aware of whether any further work has been done on it or could be done on that in the future?

Mr Richie: We have not done anything so far. That is a really good question. I am not aware of anything substantial that is being done with the industry at the moment.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Armstrong): Ciara, I am not sure whether the independent safeguarding authority is still happening, but we could probably ask it whether there are any considerations. These are employers and businesses, so what is their underage safeguarding?

Thank you very much, folks, for your presentation today. Barry, do you want to send us that information? I wish you a happy Christmas, and a safe and well 2022. We will come back to you if there is other information that you, as the experts, can provide for us. Thank you very much.

Mr Richie: Thank you.

Mr Keogh: Thank you very much.