Date: Tuesday 21 October 2025
Time: 1:00pm
Location: Committee Room 30, Parliament Buildings
Chairperson: Philip McGuigan MLA
Minutes taken by: Finn McGrath, Chambré
Members Present
· Philip McGuigan MLA
· Danny Donnelly MLA
· Maoliosa McHugh MLA
· Justin McNulty MLA
Apologies
· Paul Frew MLA
· Stephen Dunne MLA
· Robbie Butler MLA
Minutes
1. Welcome
Philip McGuigan welcomed members to the meeting.
2. Apologies
Apologies were noted.
3. Minutes of last meeting
Members agreed that the minutes of the last meeting (24 June) were a true and accurate representation of that meeting. This was proposed by Danny Donnelly and seconded by Maoliosa McHugh.
4. Matters arising
Philip McGuigan to write to the Communities Minister on behalf of the APG outlining the group’s concerns regarding unregulated prize draws on 10 October. The secretariat to explore commissioning research into the prevalence of and harms caused by prize draws.
5. Introductory remarks from the Chair
Philip McGuigan thanked members who participated in the five-a-side tournament on 12 September to raise awareness of gambling advertising in sport.
He updated members of the APG’s submission to the a call for written evidence from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Reform at Westminster, as part of their inquiry into the Future of Gambling Regulation in the UK.
6. Briefing from Dr James Noyes on ‘Duty to Differentiate’ report
Members were briefed by Dr James Noyes on the Social Market Foundation’s ‘Duty to Differentiate' report, the Treasury’s proposal to harmonise tax rates, and the case for setting a significantly higher tax rate on the most harmful form of online gambling.
Dr Noyes told members that the conversation surrounding the Treasury's initial proposals had shifted from tax efficiency to revenue-raising, and he expressed confidence that the forthcoming budget would include tax increases on the gambling industry.
The Treasury proposed to harmonise three existing tax rates—remote gaming (21%), general betting duty (15%), and pool betting duty (15%)—into a single general tax. Dr Noyes criticised the proposal, citing several concerns’. These included varied economic circumstances of different gambling products with remote gaming having particularly short supply chains and low economic multipliers and being significantly more harmful than lower-risk products, such as single event betting on horseracing. And he explained that the tax harmonisation proposal would incentive operators to prioritise more profitable, harmful products, such as online slots, potentially leading to more cross-selling and advertising of these products.
Dr Noyes also noted that online gambling is undertaxed compared to neighbouring jurisdictions, is VAT exempt, and most of the main operators are based in tax havens (e.g., Gibraltar and the Isle of Man), enabling them to avoid corporation tax. The fiscal costs associated with gambling-related harm are estimated to exceed £1 billion to the Exchequer.
The SMF proposed differentiating tax rates by increasing:
· remote gaming duty (online slots) from 21% to 50%
· general betting duty (sports/horseracing) from 15% to 25%
These proposals were estimated to raise £2 billion in additional revenue for the Treasury. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) supported these proposals and suggested raising machine gaming duty (land-based slots) from 25% to 50%, bringing the total estimated revenue to approximately £3 billion.
APG Chair Philip McGuigan asked how the SMF arrived at rates of 50% on remote gaming and 25% on online betting. Dr Noyes explained that the 50% rate on remote gaming is in line with the top rate of tax on land-based gambling in casinos in GB. The 25% rate of online betting is in line rate currently paid by horseracing in GB, factoring in the horseracing levy.
Phillip McGuigan then asked if efforts to increase taxation on the industry as a revenue-raising measure to tackle child poverty could dilute efforts to address gambling-related harm. Dr Noyes acknowledged that this is a real concern raised in particular by those with from a public health background. However, he said that increasing taxation can be understood as a harm-reduction measures, with more tax on industry resulting in increased prices, a reduction in budget for marketing, advertising and ‘free spins’, all making gambling less appealing to consumers. Furthermore, setting a significantly higher rate of tax for the most harmful forms of gambling, namely online slots, would reduce and might even reverse the incentive for cross-selling, leading to gambling operators investing more in products which facilitate lower levels of harm and provide greater economic benefit.
Maoliosa McHugh MLA asked how tax increases might affect people’s propensity to gamble, noting that gambling spend is based on factors such as risk, and acknowledging that gambling can be addictive. Dr Noyes agreed with the factors raised by Mr McHugh and pointed to the research within the report on elasticity.
The APG agreed to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlining APG’s support for the SMF proposals, ahead of her Budget statement on 26 November.
7. Next Steps
The APG agreed:
· To support Ulster University with regard to submitting bids for funds raised from the statutory levy on gambling operators distributed by UKRI, with a view to providing evidence on gambling-related harm in NI
· To continue to engage with the Departments for Communities and Health, with regard to NI receiving a share of the statutory gambling levy on online gambling operators, allocated to the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm
· To invite officials from the Social Policy Unit at the Department of Communities to update the APG at a future meeting
· That the secretariat will make arrangements for a roundtable discussion on the provision of gambling treatment and prevention services in NI
· That the secretariat will provide a briefing to members on the potential in the forthcoming Sentencing Bill to recognise the link between problem gambling and crime and have this included as a mitigating factor in sentencing guidelines.
8. AOB
There was no other business
9. Next Meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting of the APG will be held in December, date to be confirmed.