Expected reading time 5 mins
Last Updated: November 24, 2025
Written by Jon Bryan
After the publication earlier this month of the UK Parliament Treasury Committee report on gambling taxation, Jon Bryan offers his thoughts on what all of this means.
My five key takeaways after the Committee, the evidence, and the report:
1. TAX INCREASES FOR GAMBLING NOW A CERTAINTY
When you read the report by the Treasury Committee and all the statements that accompanied its release, there is no doubt about what the government will do with gambling taxes later this month. Alongside all the other noise from Chancellor Rachel Reeves about the state of the economy and that ‘we will all have to contribute’, tax increases for the gambling sector are an absolute certainty. You should put your money on it, if you could find a bookmaker who would take bet, and if they haven’t pre-emptively closed with all that is coming their way. The only questions now are about which gambling activities they will be applied to, and by how much they will be going up. The impact on the gambling sector and gamblers will then be a little easier to assess, but it is not going to be good.
2. MANY MP’S STRUGGLE WITH OBJECTIVITY AND IMPARTIALITY WHEN IT COMES TO GAMBLING
A striking thing about the Treasury Committee report is the use of the phrase ‘Do not cave in to industry scaremongering’. Regardless of your view, that the report is trailed using that wording should be of concern. Surely the point of examining the taxation of gambling was to see whether it was something that could be done in a way that proved useful to government funding, the industry, and society in general. Having that central tenet – about not giving in to ‘industry scaremongering’ – shows a bias towards one side which they are not even hiding. The underlying assumptions and prejudices of a significant number of parliamentarians are laid bare for all of us to see.
3. IT’S NO LONGER ABOUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND RAISING REVENUE
One of the most bizarre aspects of the Treasury Committee report is that many of those on it now see themselves as policymakers for the hospitality and leisure industry. The Chair of the Committee, Dame Meg Hillier MP, said:
“For many people, gambling is a fun pastime enjoyed with family and friends. But, we heard that the industry is hiding its more insidious parts behind the friendly facade of its traditional, cultural forms.”
Of course, she is entitled to express that opinion, and chairing a committee allows you the privilege to do that. However, it is not unreasonable to ask at what point did this group of MPs decide their job was to create policy for a big chunk of hospitality and leisure in the UK? The report should be about taxation and raising revenue for the treasury, rather than being about gambling and trying to make policy and societal changes in an area where they traditionally have little say.
4. IT’S AS IF THE GAMBLING REVIEW AND WHITE PAPER DID NOT HAPPEN
Everyone who has followed the discussion around gambling that took place at the start of this decade, and the White Paper that came out of it, will know that there has been a whole series of changes in the regulation of gambling. Changes to legislation have largely come from that Review and the White Paper, and some are still being implemented. Like it or not, that is the way that the industry, the government, the gambling commission, and civil servants have been addressing changes to the regulatory framework in which gambling sits.
That we now have everyone sticking their oar in, including a Parliamentary Committee of MPs who usually stick to a specific remit, is unusual. Reading a few briefing notes and asking a couple of questions does not make you an expert (or even that knowledgeable) in either gambling or gambling regulation. Parliamentarians who neglect what has happened over the last five years in the gambling sector are showing an arrogance and ignorance which needs to be pointed out. If they are reading this, I do mean you.
5. NOT ALL MP’S CAN CHALLENGE ALL THE EVIDENCE, OR TAKE A STEP BACK
One of the aspects of the oral evidence that became a talking point was about the impact gambling has on society. At the start of his evidence, Carsten Jung from the IPPR said ‘gambling is a social harm’. For most of the session, he was not challenged on that, until Dame Harriett Baldwin MP began her questioning. She said:
‘When you started your evidence, Mr Jung, you made a statement—a very sweeping statement, I thought—that gambling is a social harm. But the more evidence we have heard from the panel this morning, the more we have heard of what I observe as an MP for West Worcestershire, near Worcester racecourse and Cheltenham racecourse, with a range of betting shops on our high streets, and people who enjoy bingo and people who enjoy betting on football matches. As the evidence has gone on, you have surfaced that these sorts of things are very much part of the social fabric. Half the British population, probably, enjoy taking part in these activities and are not in any way socially harmed by them.’
That the witness who made the original ‘sweeping statement’ never came back to answer that point is quite telling. But nor was he pushed on that by anyone else on the committee, and the Chair did not refocus back on that question. Instead, they decided to use it as a stick to beat the gambling industry with, once again showing a lack of rigour.
‘Could do better’ is my summary of the way that the Committee failed to hold everyone to account on the evidence that they gave. Particularly on this last point.
Jon Bryan is a Gambling Writer and recreational Poker Player who writes regularly on his Substack, as well as for SlotsHawk, which you can find here: Jon’s articles for SlotsHawk.
Follow him on social media:
