Gambling Minister comes closest yet to indicating what can be expected in the Gambling Act Review White Paper

In his current monthly ‘Licensing Expert’ article for SBC News, entitled ‘The story behind a tragic story’ (reported by us here), David Clifton concluded that it is inevitable that the Coroner’s conclusions in the inquest into the tragic suicide of Jack Ritchie will feature in the forthcoming debates on gambling law reform following publication of the Government’s Gambling Act Review White Paper.

Somewhat sooner than that, Paul Blomfield (MP for Sheffield Central, where Jack Ritchie was a constituent) secured a House of Commons debate on the subject of ‘Jack Ritchie: Gambling Act Review’. A transcript of that debate, which took place on Monday 21 March 2022, is available on Hansard and can be accessed here.

Responding to Paul Blomfield’s speech in that debate, Chris Philp (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, often referred to as the ‘Gambling Minister’) not only thanked the Coroner, Jack Ritchie’s parents and others for bringing this matter to the attention of the House of Commons and the Government, but also came the closest yet to indicating what might be expected within the Government’s forthcoming Gambling Act Review White Paper, publication of which is currently anticipated during May 2022.

Although making the point that he could not ‘pre-announce’ all the White Paper proposals, key comments made by Philp in his speech were as follows:

  • “We need to go significantly further to make sure that people are appropriately protected”
  • “The nature of the online games, the fact that people can access them 24/7, the fact that frequency of play is very high, and the look and feel of some of the features make them significantly more risky than other forms of gambling, such as gambling in person at a racecourse, playing bingo or playing the National Lottery. All those things can be addictive, but the online games have a much higher risk”
  • “The gambling review will take the significant additional steps needed to protect people like Jack and to protect everybody who is gambling. We want to be proportionate in taking those steps—we do not want to prevent people who want to gamble on a leisure basis from doing so or put unreasonable obstacles in the way—but we do need to take action”
  • “Another piece of evidence we should all consider in making the case for action is that of the failures being committed today by gambling operators” [with specific reference being made to (a) recent enforcement action taken by the Gambling Commission against 888 and Sky Betting & Gaming and (b) media reports from earlier this year relating to a £15 million fraud perpetrated to fund an online gambling habit, as previously reported by the City of London Police in July 2018]
  • “One area where we can go is using data. I mentioned that online gambling is one of the areas that carry higher risk, unlike betting at a racecourse, for example, which carries a risk, but a significantly lower one. Data should and will enable the Gambling Commission to do a much better job at identifying what the operators are really doing and getting a complete picture of whether they are intervening when people’s gambling patterns of behaviour indicate that there is a problem, which clearly did not happen in Jack Ritchie’s case”
  • “We are watching [the position regarding the single customer view] extremely carefully and will be commenting further on that in the White Paper. I also take his points about timing and about the need for it to be effective and appropriately overseen and governed”
  • Affordability checks …. need to be proportionate and pitched at the right level, but they have a really important role in making sure that some of the situations that I have mentioned, and situations like Jack Ritchie’s, do not occur. The data is available if operators properly use it and if the Gambling Commission has proper access to it to deliver that result. That should be a very significant area of attention in the Gambling Act review that is coming up very shortly”.

Chris Philp’s entire speech (together with interventions made during the course of its delivery by Ronnie Cowan MP, Vice-Chair of the Gambling Related Harm APPG) is set out below.

Chris Philp: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this important and moving debate, inspired by a young man, Jack Ritchie, whose life was tragically lost as a result of gambling addiction. I join him in paying tribute to Jack’s brave and determined parents, Liz and Charles, who as he says are with us this evening and whom I have had the privilege of meeting on at least three occasions since becoming the Minister responsible in this area, about six months ago, for their campaigning and work to bring something constructive and positive from their son’s tragic death. They have pursued their campaign with great vigour and have succeeded in getting the attention of Government and Parliament, as this evening’s debate clearly demonstrates.

The coroner’s report into Jack’s tragic death is very powerful, and I will turn to its contents in a moment. Clearly, the coroner’s report lays out, as the hon. Member said very eloquently and powerfully, a number of inadequacies and failings. I have in front of me a copy of the coroner’s Regulation 28 report, which says that “the system of regulation in force at the time of his death did not stop Jack gambling at a point when he was obviously addicted to gambling.”

That was a point that the hon. Member cited in his speech. The second point that it makes, under its section “Matters of Concern” says: “The warnings Jack received were insufficient to prevent him gambling.”

The record of inquest, a separate document, says: “The evidence was that gambling contributed to Jack’s death.”

It makes it very clear that there was a link between the two.

I thank the senior coroner for the South Yorkshire West area, David Urpeth, for the time and trouble that he took in preparing this thoughtful report and in writing to us. He said in his report: “I issue this preventing future death report in the hope that Government finds the concerns raised informative and of assistance, especially at a time they are considering the whole issue of gambling and its regulation.”

We do find the report informative and of assistance, and I am grateful to the coroner, to the family, Liz and Charles, and to everyone who played a part in that inquest for their work in bringing this report to the attention of the House and to the attention of Government.

It is worth putting it on record that there have been some positive changes since 2017, but, clearly, these do not go far enough. Just for the record, it is worth emphasising what those changes are. Clearly, this House voted a couple of years ago, after a powerful public campaign, to reduce the stake on fixed odds betting terminals—the B2 machines—from £100 down to £2 because of the overwhelming evidence that they were causing and fuelling gambling addiction. Gambling on credit cards has now been banned, online slot games have been made safer by design, the age limit for the National Lottery has been increased to 18, and there are tighter restrictions on the VIP scheme. In addition, there are currently two, about to be five, and there will be 15 gambling addiction treatment clinics funded by the NHS long-term plan, but, as I will say in a moment, these measures are not enough by a long chalk and we need to go further.