Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Helen Grant and David Nuttall(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
It is clear from the number of complaints I have received that the Telephone Preference Service is simply not working. I urge the Secretary of State to take whatever action is needed to stop nuisance telephone calls.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Helen Grant and David Nuttall(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
12. What plans he has to provide superfast broadband to those areas not covered by existing policies.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Helen Grant and David Nuttall(9 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Can the Minister explain what impact assessment was made of how many small and independent betting shops will close and how many jobs will be lost as a result of the measures she announced yesterday, coming on top of the increase in tax announced in the Budget?
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
Debate between Helen Grant and David Nuttall(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have to look after racing. It is an important industry that provides many jobs. This is a sensible move, making a level playing field for all operators.
At the same time, we will develop wider levy reform options and publish a consultation in the summer. The consultation will seek views on a range of options, which are likely to include commercial arrangements, modernising the existing levy and a horse race betting right. The amendment is about collecting the horserace betting levy in a fair and consistent way.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that it would not be possible to extend the levy to offshore bookmakers without the approval of the EU and that we are totally dependent on receiving that approval in order to be able to do it legally?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Certainly, the levy scheme amounts to state aid and, because of the terms, we need to let the EU know if there is any substantial change in state aid and get permission for it.
The amendment is reasonable and I believe it commands widespread support. It signals the Government’s commitment to modernising the levy and it is, of course, part of, but not a substitute for, a wider reform programme.
Mrs Grant
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members for what they have said today about this important issue, and for their contributions during the Bill’s earlier stages. I shall be fairly brief, but I want to deal with some of the points that they have raised.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), accused us of performing a U-turn. I certainly do not accept that accusation, and I am a little surprised that he made it. I have said time and again—and the hon. Gentleman has heard me say it—that the extension on its own does not equate to genuine levy reform. The amendment is part of a wider levy reform programme, which is essential and which will involve our looking at all the various options.
The shadow Minister rightly asked for further details about time scales and delay. Delay is the last thing that I want: we need to move ahead. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will seek to complete all the necessary extension work in time for the 2015 negotiations on the 55th levy scheme, and that we will begin consultation on wider levy reform this summer. We hope to complete that consultation by the autumn. We want to get on with this, but it must be done properly, and there are a number of practical considerations that prevent us from doing it any earlier. As the hon. Gentleman will know, any significant change beyond extension would require primary legislation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Helen Grant and David Nuttall(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Grant
Local authorities already have powers, such as article 4 directions and licensing conditions. The hon. Gentleman is complaining about the number of betting shops and FOBTs on high streets, but it was his party’s Gambling Act 2005 and his party’s liberalisation and relaxing of the rules that got us into this position in the first place.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only demand from customers that determines the number of betting shops in an area?
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
Debate between Helen Grant and David Nuttall(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Grant
We will look at all the relevant information, and I am certainly happy to take another good look at what the Committee has said. The important thing for casinos is that they maintain a proper balance between table play and machine play, because we do not want them to become machine sheds, as some have suggested they might. I can confirm today that I am happy generally to review the issue of gaming machine provision in casinos.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Minister tell us how the measures in the Bill are to be enforced?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Helen Grant and David Nuttall(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Grant
As I keep repeating, my view is that these machines raise serious issues, but we need to take a fair and decent approach to the issue of problem gambling, while not over-regulating bookmakers. We therefore need to do our research and look at the matter in detail so that we can come up with a balanced, sensible and fair way forward.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one effect of allowing B2 gaming machines in bookmakers is that they help to maintain the viability of these offices, providing employment for local people and an environment where those with a gambling problem are more likely to be identified and pointed in the direction of the help they need than if they were to sit at home gambling on the internet, where, incidentally, they could gamble any amount they liked?
Prisons (Property) Bill
Debate between Helen Grant and David Nuttall(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Amendment 2 proposes an addition to proposed new section 42A(1) of the Prison Act 1952, as inserted by clause 1 of the Bill, which would extend the power of a governor or director to places outside a prison or prison escort vehicle, such as a hospital, court cells or a police station where a prisoner might be detained in custody. In some circumstances, the prisoner, although they are in custody, will not be in the custody of the governor. It would therefore not be appropriate to extend the powers in such a way. I think that deals with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) about extending the power beyond the prisoner escort vehicle.
It is already possible to remove any unauthorised items found on a prisoner while they are in custody outside the prison. Such items would be returned to the prison with the prisoner and dealt with as the prisoner re-entered the prison. The prison governor or directors could authorise the prisoner to keep the item with him or her in prison or disposal could be required. If appropriate, the governor could confiscate it and use the general power of destruction already provided in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will therefore withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 3 is not necessary. Prison officers will have the power to act in the way envisaged by the amendment through the delegated authority of the prison governor. It is therefore not necessary specifically to include them in that power. In addition, “prison officer” is the term used to describe officers in a public sector prison and would not cover prison custody officers, who carry out the same function in private sector prisons. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press that amendment.
The purpose of amendment 4 would appear to be to create a catch-all power to cover all property used for any unauthorised or unlawful purpose. Although I can understand my hon. Friend’s reasons for tabling the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. Any unauthorised item could be confiscated and destroyed under the power created in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of proposed new section 42A. Furthermore, an item used for unlawful or unauthorised purposes that would clearly prejudice the security or operation of the prison or cause harm to prisoners or others would be dealt with by proposed new subsection 3(c) or (b). I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the amendment is not necessary.
On amendment 5, I applaud my hon. Friend’s desire to see that confiscated property is put to good use and to ensure that charities might benefit wherever possible. The Bill already enables that. Proposed new section 42A enables a governor or director to
“destroy or otherwise dispose of”
confiscated property. My hon. Friend’s amendment is not necessary, because the phrase “otherwise dispose of” would allow the item to be recycled or donated to charity. I can assure him that the guidance given to governors and directors in the relevant Prison Service instruction will make it clear that those options are available.
The sale of property, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, would involve a financial gain for the Prison Service and has therefore been specified in the Bill. Other methods of disposal, such as recycling, do not need express provision as they are covered, as I have explained, by the expression “otherwise dispose of”.
Amendments 6,7 and 8 are the most significant and have the potential to undermine the progress of the Bill. The Bill as drafted contains a limited retrospective power and although retrospective legislation is generally not a good idea, that limited power has a specific purpose with which I am sure the House will agree. It is intended to enable the Prison Service to deal with the large number of mobile telephones held in storage. The House will be aware from previous debates on the Bill that more than 40,000 telephones are held at a cost of £20,000 a year and it is appropriate that we should take a power to deal with them. It is, after all, a criminal offence both to possess a mobile telephone in prison and to bring one into a prison. Governors and directors have options for other property that is not illegal per se. They can authorise the item, place it in central storage, require a prisoner to send it out of the prison or otherwise dispose of it. There is therefore no need for a general retrospective power to deal with such property and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press those amendments.
Amendment 9 is intended to address the ability of the Prison Service to destroy or dispose of mobile phones found in prisons. It is unlawful to possess or use a mobile phone in prison. The amendment would therefore prevent the Prison Service from disposing of them, as it is likely that every unauthorised mobile phone found in prison would contain or constitute evidence of a criminal offence. My hon. Friend asked about the checking of mobile phones and I understand that they are interrogated for evidence of criminality on confiscation. I hope that in the circumstances he will therefore agree not to press the amendment.
Mr Nuttall
The Minister has told the House that the mobile phones are interrogated. Will she briefly expand on what happens to any information that is found after they have been interrogated?