© REUTERS/Peter Nicholls FILE PHOTO: A man sits at a fixed odds betting terminal in a betting shop in London, Britain October 31, 2017. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/File Photo – REUTERS/Peter Nicholls
Fresh “nanny state” fears have been stoked after the gambling minister said curbs on under-25s placing bets are part of a state crackdown to help younger adults manage their money.
Culture minister Stuart Andrew compared plans to impose a £2 maximum bet for online slot machine games with teaching under-25s what to spend their money on.
He said: “Given that there is a high proportion of those that do suffer gambling harm are of that age group felt it was important to just introduce some extra levels [of protection] there.
“Just the same way as we do in other areas of work, so we do financial education, programmes for young people as they’re developing their lives.”
Nigel Farage, the former Brexit Party leader, told GB News on Thursday: “The gambling white paper says that those under 25 need to have special rules put in place for them. This is big nanny state.”
He went on to dismiss the idea that “24-year-olds need special protection”.
Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, told The Telegraph: “It amazes me that the people most in favour of reducing the voting age to 16 are the biggest cheerleaders for curbing people’s right to bet until they are 25. Either those people are responsible enough to make decisions for themselves or not.
“We decided in this country many years ago that 18 was the appropriate age to treat people as adults. I don’t like this infantilisation of young adults.”
Greg Smith, the Tory MP for Buckingham, warned that the curbs risk driving younger gamblers to unlicensed online betting companies which offer far fewer protections.
He told the Commons: “’Twas ever thus that when Governments ban or curtail legitimate activities, underground markets bubble up to fill that void.”
The proposals, which will now be consulted on, are contained within a White Paper that marks the biggest shake-up of betting regulation for nearly two decades.
Dubbed by ministers reforms of laws “to protect vulnerable users in smartphone era” a mandatory levy will be imposed on betting companies to pay for treatment of gambling addiction.
Plans are also being put forward to introduce background checks on customers so that they can afford to place a bet.
© Provided by The Telegraph Former Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage speaks during an election night watch party for Republican gubernatorial candidate for Arizona Kari Lake in Scottsdale, Arizona, on November 8, 2022. (Photo by Olivier Touron / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER TOURON/AFP via Getty Images) – OLIVIER TOURON/AFP via Getty Images
Furthermore, a “Think 25” code will be imposed on betting shops and casinos, bringing them into line with similar rules for the sale of alcohol and cigarettes.
Ministers decided against a ban on gambling company advertising, however, despite widespread calls to bring marketing in line with other “vice” industries such as smoking.
Announcing the plans in the Commons, Lucy Frazer, the Culture Secretary, said that “while the overwhelming majority is done safely and within people’s means, for some the ever-present temptation can lead them to a dangerous path”.
She said: “When gambling becomes addiction, it can wreck lives: shattered families; lost jobs; foreclosed homes; jail time; suicide.
“We need a new approach that recognises that a flutter is one thing, but unchecked addiction is another. Today we are bringing our pre-smartphone regulations into the present day with a gambling White Paper for the digital age.”
Ian Proctor, UK chairman of Flutter, the £28 billion company behind Sky Bet, Paddy Power and Betfair, said that the impression from ministers is that everyone is a problem gambler.
“That is the tone. And personally, I find that disappointing,” he said.
“I think that in all of this debate, the millions of people that have a bet every week… have been lost in all of this.”
He continued: “The balance just doesn’t seem right in terms of where the discussion is. That is frustrating.
“If you take cigarettes, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, I mean, some campaigners will say it’s akin to cigarettes. I absolutely dispute that.”
“You’ve got, probably something 90pc of the adult population enjoy a drink from time to time and you’ve got half of the population have a bet from time to time. So I think that’s where the answer really lies.”
Mr Proctor also believed that implementing maximum stake limits was not the best way to protect younger gamblers.
He said: “Account controls are more effective than stake limits, because you look at what the customer is gambling on, right across all the different things.
“We’ve introduced deposit limits which you know, then cut across everything that the young person gambles on. the overarching best control you can have. I don’t think it’s not entirely ineffective, but it’s not the most important thing.”
Liz and Charles Ritchie, who founded charity Gambling with Lives after losing their son Jack to gambling-related suicide, welcomed winning “concessions on some of the key areas” from the Government.
However, Ms Ritchie added: “But so much more needs to happen to reduce the horrendous harm caused by one of the most loosely regulated gambling industries in the world.
“We’ve won the argument against a powerful gambling lobby but this is just the beginning. There’s another family devastated by gambling suicide every day, and we won’t stop until the deaths do.”
Mr Ritchie added: “We now need to push further for an end to all gambling advertising, we need preventative affordability checks when losses reach £100 a month, and we need to do more to make the most dangerous products safer, further reducing stake sizes and play speeds.”