Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Helen Grant and Graham P Jones(9 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
13. What recent discussions he has had with gambling addiction charities on funding for research into fixed odds betting terminals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I regularly meet groups and individuals interested in gambling. Earlier this year I chaired a meeting of faith groups, care providers and campaign groups to discuss issues of concern.
Graham Jones
It is apt that the Secretary of State has moved from the Treasury to the DCMS, and I congratulate him on his promotion. How much of the £90 million that will be raised from the increase from 20% to 25% in the levy on FOBTs will be given to GamCare?
Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (Lancashire)
Debate between Helen Grant and Graham P Jones(10 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on securing the debate, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) for their interventions, which were, as ever, important and knowledgeable.
This debate on fixed odds betting terminals and their effect on communities has focused largely on Lancashire, but the Government recognise that many people throughout the country have concerns about the machines, and that some people have gone through considerable difficulties as a result of playing them. That is why the Government are working hard and rapidly to make them safer, especially to those at greatest risk. I have made the Government’s approach clear in various debates and answers to questions recently, but for the avoidance of doubt I shall set our position out again.
The Government conducted a review of gaming machine stakes and prize limits last year and as part of that we called for evidence that fixed odds betting terminals present an elevated risk of gambling-related harm. We received plenty of anecdotal evidence from people who have experienced problems similar to those outlined by the hon. Member for Hyndburn as a result of playing the machines. However, we also received formal advice from the Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board that a precautionary reduction in stake or prize limits was unsupported by evidence, and was unlikely to be effective in minimising harm, which is what the debate is all about. The Government concluded that the future of the machines is unresolved.
Graham Jones
The Minister makes a point about an evidence-based approach, but we must at some point adopt an intelligence-based approach that looks forward. Of course there is no evidence in the future; that is the basis of the precautionary principle. Does she accept that we need an approach that is not exclusively evidence-based, but also about intelligence in applying a precautionary principle?
Mrs Grant
Of course we must look at all the factors, and that is why I have had several meetings with various industry people. Someone from GamCare came to see me in my office yesterday, and I am prepared to consider everything relevant, to ensure that we do not just have a knee-jerk response and that if there is a need for regulation it will be proportionate and sensible, and will do the job of dealing with problem gambling.
Graham Jones
Has the Minister met representatives of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling?
Mrs Grant
No, I have not, but I believe that a round table meeting has been or is being arranged. If that organisation has not yet been invited, I am sure that it will be.
The Government fully acknowledge that fixed odds betting terminals cause problems for some people. That needs to be addressed—the Prime Minister was clear about that at Prime Minister’s questions on 8 January—but we have to be responsible and to take action likely to be effective. For that reason, the Government have demanded that the industry bring in precautionary player protection measures while we look at the evidence on how players can be protected most effectively in the longer term.
Mrs Grant
I want to make a little headway, but I will then let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
More specifically, the industry will introduce strengthened player protection measures, which come into effect in just a few weeks’ time—from the end of next month. For the first time, all machines will introduce automatic pauses in play and the option for customers to set limits on both how long they play and how much money they spend. In addition, information on playing behaviour will be available to customers, and the industry will make it easier for players to self-exclude. Those measures are the most significant controls on gaming machines since the Gambling Act 2005. It has been made clear to the industry that if the measures are insufficient, a precautionary approach will be taken, which could include action on stakes and prizes, speed of play or any other appropriate measure.
However, I am not stopping there. I am meeting the chief executives of the five largest British bookmakers again next week when they will be presenting me with plans to link players with data in a way that allows us better to understand player behaviour and to assess the effectiveness of the harm mitigation measures being introduced. I have been clear that if I am not satisfied by the industry’s proposals, the case for prudential moves on stakes, prizes, availability of machines or anonymous play will be made significantly stronger.
In addition, the Responsible Gambling Trust is carrying out research that aims better to understand how people behave when playing gaming machines and what helps people to stay in control. I met the trust in December, pressed it to make progress with the research programme and emphasised the importance of obtaining tangible research outcomes by autumn 2014. I am absolutely clear that the industry must find a way to secure and examine data that links players with play, so that more effective player protection can be developed.
Graham Jones
The Minister has made some good points, and I accept that she is now beginning to move towards the precautionary principle, given her comments about the interventions on machines that will come in by the end of next month. Is that not a move from an evidence-based approach, under which nothing will be done until the evidence is gathered despite there being no evidence, to the acceptance that something should be done? We are now applying the precautionary principle and including splash screens on FOBTs to protect gamblers. Is that not a shift from an evidence-based approach to the precautionary principle? Is that not the right way forward?
Mrs Grant
No. I have been clear on the matter from the start, and I am quite surprised at what the hon. Gentleman says. The first time I stood up to discuss the issue at oral questions in the House, I said that the machines are a concern, that there is no green light for fixed odds betting machines and that their future is unresolved pending further work that has already begun. I have continued to send out that message.
Whether local authorities have sufficient powers is often raised in such debates, but I believe that their powers are sufficient to deal with concerns. Local authorities can reject an application for a gambling premises licence or grant one with additional conditions. They have the power to review a premises licence after it has been granted and can actually impose licence conditions after review. Many local authorities have already used those powers to good effect—I congratulate Newham, which used its powers in November—and the Government urge local authorities fully to utilise the powers at their disposal to tackle problem gambling in their communities.
Mrs Grant
No, I want to make a little more progress.
Local authorities are also able to use article 4 directions to good effect. I am pleased to say that two authorities have brought forward directions in respect of betting shops. I congratulate the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and of Southwark for using powers when the amenity of their communities needs additional protection.
I want to pick up on three issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. First, he mentioned the scrapping of the annual prevalence survey, which was an expensive way of measuring problem gambling, with over £500,000 of taxpayer money being spent on each survey. The health surveys for England and Scotland now measure problem gambling rates, which is a much more cost-effective and efficient method of collecting data.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to a request made by the university of Cambridge for a FOBT for research purposes. I am willing to write to those concerned to assist in the resolution of that matter. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman remarked on the link between the location of betting shops and deprivation, but I understand that such shops are located according to footfall. To back that up, no significant correlation exists between the indices of multiple deprivation and problem gambling rates. That was confirmed by the December 2013 health survey.
In conclusion, the Government are undertaking urgent work to ensure the safety of all users of fixed odds betting terminals. The industry will be reporting to me next week on its plans for targeted player protection measures for those at greatest risk. I do not rule out any action that may be necessary to make machines safer. If the player protection measures do not prove sufficient, or if the balance of evidence suggests that precautionary action on stakes and prizes or other measures is required, the Government will not hesitate to act.
Government Reductions in Policing
Debate between Helen Grant and Graham P Jones(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Government speak of reform of the police force: of front-line services and of back-office management. However, “reform” is a euphemism that the Government use for the most drastic cuts to one of our most vital public services.
Actions speak louder than words, and the public will judge the Government on their actions and their decision to cut the police budget by 20%. The Government speak of reform, but the reality is deep and damaging cuts, which will drastically affect the front line of our police force.
We should not underestimate the scale of the cuts. Almost a quarter of a million people are employed by 43 police forces in England and Wales. The Association of Chief Police Officers has put a figure on how the Government’s 20% cut is likely to translate into the number of officers on the street. It estimates that 28,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts. Of those, 12,000 will be police officers and 16,000 will be so-called civilian staff. That represents a fall of around 12% in overall staff numbers, with 8% of officers losing their jobs.
The Government’s Winsor review states that the taxpayer will save £485 million over three years as a result of those cuts, but at what cost? Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that more than two thirds of all police force staff in England and Wales are employed in front-line roles, but that not all are necessarily visible. It stated that the front line is
“not just what you notice, but it’s also what you rely on.”
We must not make a clinical distinction between front-line and back-office policing. That is too crude. We must not confuse visibility with deployment.
HMIC found that 95% of police officers are either on the front line or working in important middle-office roles in—for example, intelligence gathering or operation planning. Even if the Government’s claim that cuts of 20% would affect only back-office roles were true, those middle and back-office roles are not simply disposable assets. Cuts to middle and back-office roles will inevitably have an effect on the ability of those on the front line to do their jobs.
The Prime Minister said:
“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]
I would like to echo the words of Steve Finnigan, our chief constable. He said that preventing cuts from hitting the front line would prove challenging. He went further, saying that it would be impossible to protect the front line. He was asked this week whether the Government’s cuts mean that he will have to reduce front-line policing and he replied, “I absolutely am.” Chief Constable Finnigan is ACPO’s lead officer on performance management. Does the Home Secretary think that he is wrong? Does she think that Chief Constable Finnigan of ACPO and Lancashire police is not managing his force correctly?
The point is simple, and we are hearing it from forces throughout the country. We simply cannot make cuts of 20% without hitting front-line services. Our police force is one of our most vital public services. Those officers do some of the hardest jobs in the most demanding circumstances and the Government have wholly underestimated their commitment and dedication.
The Government’s so-called reforms will inevitably have an impact on the police service for years to come. The Government promised that there would be no centrally determined job losses—I suppose that that is technically true. Instead, the Government are responsible for the heavy front-loaded cuts, leaving the inevitable job losses in the hands of local authorities and the police.
The priority must be to protect the visibility and availability of police forces in our local communities. However, my constituents are far from optimistic about the so-called reforms. Lancashire Police Federation has said that, in the light of cuts, the force will be hit doubly with job losses and pay cuts, about which we have already heard.
Graham Jones
I would like to finish, please. Plenty of other hon. Members wish to speak.
John O’Reilly, chairman of Lancashire Police Federation, said:
“Lancashire is a top performing force because of its workforce.”
John goes on to say that
“if the Government keep bashing us, all they are doing is opening up the door for criminals to make life more difficult.”
Figures put to the Lancashire police authority suggest a drastic reduction in the number of officers, which would put Lancashire’s officer strength at its lowest since 2003. In the period since 2003, Lancashire has experienced the greatest fall in crime, and I would not like to go back to 2003 crime levels. However, the cuts will result in an eight-year low in the number of police officers on Lancashire’s streets.
Everyone supports sensible reform, but the Government are hitting our police forces hard, and it will be to the detriment of our local communities. My constituents are concerned that cuts to our already stretched police force will be an open invitation for criminals to commit more crime. Do the Government really think that crime levels will not rise with the police force stretched, understaffed and under-resourced? Do they honestly think that antisocial behaviour will not increase, and that the safety in our streets will not be put into question as a result of there being fewer officers on the beat?
Two thirds of the British public share those concerns and, to date, the Government have done nothing to put those concerns to rest. People are clearly concerned that reduced police funding will have detrimental effects, and at the same time, the Government are prepared to spend £40 million or thereabouts on electing police commissioners.
Furthermore, there has been a two-year delay on the decision on whether police community support officers will continue. My constituents are worried not only about police cuts, but about the Home Office budgets that affect PCSOs. This is not just a numbers game. The Government seem happy to cut our police force by a fifth, but have they paid any thought to the experience and expertise of the PCSOs who will be lost as a result of those cuts?
The Home Secretary must realise that she cannot make drastic cuts of 20% to the police budget without losing some of our most experienced and dedicated officers from the front line. The Government must think again on the scale and pace of the cuts. They are going too far, too fast.