The House of Lords returned once again to the debate on gambling harms, this time focusing the discussion on the young people perceived to be at risk from online gaming and targeted advertising.
Citing elements such as loot boxes and esports gambling, the peers – who with all due respect are way out of their intellectual depth on such issues – argued that familiarising players with gambling mechanics from an early age increases the likelihood of gambling harm in later years.
“Speakers raised concerns that the current licensing framework under the 2005 Gambling Act does not adequately reflect today’s easy access to online casinos as well as the speed and personalisation of online products,” reported focus.gn. “They urged the government to introduce tougher, stricter age-verification rules and affordability checks as well as tougher rules against game design or marketing that disproportionately appeals to younger users.”
“Peers also argued that gambling operators’ licence conditions should include clearer requirements to share data with the Gambling Commission and with researchers. They should also be required to show how they identify risky behaviour and how they intervene when it’s identified.”
This is all very worrying, not because of the decisions, but definitely the process. Considering their limited technological knowledge, the idea that the House of Lords can bring any value to this debate when the mean age of members is 71-72 and the largest grouping is aged between 71-79 is risible.
The debate was largely backed by members of the House, who stated that DCMS and the Gambling Commission should introduce tighter regulation following the implementation of the 2023 Gambling White Paper.
Given the pace of this Gambling Act reform, most of these Lords will be dead by the time it all gets enacted, which once again raises the crucial political issue – why on earth is UK democracy influenced and determined by crusty old white people who will certainly not see out the time in which their decisions will pass into law.