Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I am very happy to get on with it. The point I was seeking to make is that gambling addiction is a health issue. The NHS will very shortly be opening a gambling harms clinic in my constituency. It will join a network of 15 across the country that are tackling the serious problem of gambling addiction. Hon. Members have asked, “What requires an intervention? What is the difference between gambling and going out and spending £150 on a meal, shopping and other leisure activities?”, butI do not see the NHS treating those activities as a serious health issue, as it does with gambling addiction.

[Matt Hancock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? I am a former Health Secretary.

[Paul Blomfield]

I know that the right hon. Member is a former Health Secretary.

[Matt Hancock]

I was the Secretary of State who introduced those gambling clinics.

[Paul Blomfield]

I know.

[Matt Hancock]

There was one beforehand. Will the hon. Gentleman address the question of the extent to which we know that those gambling harms are related to betting on horseracing—as opposed to these games of chance, which are so aggressive and have algorithms designed to promote addiction?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am happy to have taken that intervention, because I was not seeking to make that point. I was recognising the way in which horseracing is being used as a wedge issue to tackle a different problem, as has been echoed by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). There is a distinction, and we should not let horseracing be used to undermine the affordability checks that are needed in a different context.

The point I was making is that if this is a health issue, we need to have a prevention strategy, just as we do with other health problems. I commend the Government for the prevention strategy that they have developed with the gambling White Paper. Affordability checks are an important part of that strategy, but it is regrettable that the debate around them is generating more heat than light, as it has done today.

I can understand why, beyond racing, the gambling industry is keen to avoid checks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East pointed out, Gambling Commission research using the “Patterns of Play” data confirms that the most profitable 1% of accounts make 70.4% of gross gambling yield. Those are disproportionate profits derived from small numbers of players, who in many cases are gambling much more than they can afford to lose. Those people need to be protected. We know that harm can happen at relatively low levels of spend, so it is important that affordability checks be set low enough to prevent harm.

I understand the fears behind the petition. It is important that we spend time, as other colleagues have done, underlining how unobtrusive checks can be and, I am confident, will be. Affordability checks are nothing new, and contrary to suggestions from the industry, background checks on financial vulnerability could be frictionless, making use of already available data—data that we should remember is already used by the industry itself to monitor accounts and, in some cases, withhold winnings from players to regulate their losses. The data is there, and the industry is willing to use it in one context. Why not in this context, too?

We know that in the case of enhanced checks, only 0.3% of account holders would be expected to provide additional information—I think that point was made earlier. That is a tiny number in relation to the benefit that could be achieved through introducing the checks. The vast majority of checks can be done passively, using information that is in the public domain or required for registering an account. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath made the same point in her speech. It is also important that checks be done by independent, reputable third parties regulated by the FCA. We should bear that in mind, too.

I want to make a brief comment on the black market argument that has started to come up. This is the last refuge of rogues, really. When the tobacco industry had run out of every other argument to stop regulation, it said, “But what about the black market? Don’t do anything to us: it will force people to turn into black market smokers”—and they did not. We saw a successful public health strategy on tobacco. Payday lenders made the same argument when affordability checks were introduced in their sector, and we have not seen a significant movement from payday lenders to black market loan sharks.

Claims about the potential growth of the black market following more stringent regulations have been successfully challenged, including by the Gambling Commission, whose powers to address the issue of illegal sites will be further strengthened by provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill. I understand the difficulties in regulating the online world. We face rogue operators across the online world, but if we are prepared to tackle them in other spheres, why not in online gambling?

Affordability checks will play an important role. They must be set independently rather than by the industry, and set at a level that will protect those who need them most. I recognise that many people enjoy betting safely and without harm, and we can and should ensure that affordability checks are frictionless except in the most extreme circumstances. We cannot lose sight of the fact that affordability checks are about protecting people from harm and ensuring that the gambling industry is regulated in the right way.

I note the points made about things that have already been happening. Those things are happening because the industry knows that change is coming. If the industry had been left to its own devices, we would never have seen those sorts of measures.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

This is another example of where we work better together as one United Kingdom; we are working to solve this problem precisely. Coming from the borders with Wales, I understand this very clearly. Work is under way to ensure that there is interoperability between the data systems in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This situation was not foreseen when health responsibilities were devolved. I have been working with my counterparts in the three devolved nations on fixing it, and we have agreed to fix it. Getting these data to talk to each other is technically complicated, but that work is under way.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

In their decisions on easing the lockdown, the Government have rightly emphasised the importance of being driven by data, but when Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the red list, the data showed that daily infection rates were substantially higher in India. Will the Secretary of State admit that the decision not to put India on the red list at that time was influenced by the Prime Minister’s imminent visit to Delhi and the desire to secure a trade deal? Does he now recognise that that was a mistake?

[Matt Hancock]

If I just explain the data to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will understand. The measures of the case rate per 100,000 are influenced by the amount of testing that is done in any country, and there is not nearly as much testing in Pakistan or Bangladesh as there is in India. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the rate of positivity of people coming from Pakistan was three times higher than that of people coming from India, which was at that time quite low. We have to be careful with the raw data, and we have to look at the underlying positivity. One of the advantages of testing everybody at the border is that we now effectively have a global surveillance system to understand the positivity of travellers from any individual country. As I said, the decision was taken on the basis of the fact that the positivity was three times higher from Pakistan than from India.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, we are working very hard to get the vaccine to every part of the country, including Cleethorpes. I will look into exactly when the vaccine is arriving in Cleethorpes and get back to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretary of State is right that, at this critical moment, we must think about the NHS staff we were applauding on the streets so recently, and we clearly must do everything possible to protect people from the spread of the virus. May I press him to say how the advice for the Christmas period could be strengthened by the Government to minimise transmission? Does he recognise the need for better financial support for the sectors most affected by the measures that we need, such as hospitality, and particularly for those who have fallen through the gaps in the Chancellor’s schemes?

[Matt Hancock]

With the decision to move areas into tier 3 comes extra financial support, and as I have said several times, we recommend that people exercise personal caution and responsibility over the Christmas period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend has been a tireless advocate for Burnley. He is quite right to praise the people of Burnley, who have had local restrictions put in place. Because of the actions they have taken—because they have followed their duty and followed those tougher rules—and the sacrifices they have made, the case rate has come down in Burnley, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to every single resident of Burnley who has played their part. Absolutely, the enhanced support will continue in Burnley, as it does across those parts of Greater Manchester, East Lancashire and West Yorkshire that we have been able to take out of the most restrictive measures, and we continue to watch with vigilance.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that on Friday, the Royal College of Nursing launched a campaign for a 12.5% pay increase, which would do only a little more than restore real pay to the value it had in 2010 when the Conservatives were elected. There is huge public support for all who work in our health and care system, so, ahead of the Budget, will the Secretary of State commit to pressing the Chancellor for the funds necessary to pay all our health and care staff properly?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course we have put in over the last two and a half years some very significant pay rises for nurses, and the whole House commends the work that the nursing profession as a whole, and each individual nurse, has done during this pandemic. Of course we are putting unprecedented sums into the NHS, and we work to make sure that everybody has the best possible working conditions, both now and in the future.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely I will. I know that the right hon. Gentleman met the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), yesterday to discuss this question. Of course this ought to be a collaborative process. Improvements were made to the Bill in the other place—I shall talk about those in a moment—but we recognise that further improvements could still be made. Ultimately, there is a careful balance to be struck between the need to protect people who do not have the full mental capacity to take care of themselves and the need to ensure that we do not deprive people of their liberty unnecessarily. That is a careful balance, and we should take this forward on the basis of open discussion and deliberation, rather than of a party political ding-dong.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is clearly right about the system being broken, and one aspect of that is the shockingly low rate of appeals under deprivation of liberty orders, which currently stands at about 1%. Although the case law has become clearer, in most situations there is a positive obligation on advocates to progress cases to court where somebody is objecting to their deprivation of liberty, either directly or even through their behaviour. In contrast, 47% of detention decisions under the Mental Health Act 1983 are appealed. The Bill’s impact assessment predicts that the number of appeals will halve under the new procedure. Given the amendments that were made to the Bill in the Lords, does the Secretary of State think that the Government should now review that figure?

[Matt Hancock]

All such considerations should be taken into account and looked at in Committee. We made changes to that area in the Lords, and we are determined to reach the right balance, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s important point seriously. Like anyone who has read the Bill, he will know that it makes a significant improvement in this area. Rather than cases being immediately passed on to the courts, there is a process in place both before the deprivation of liberty where that is possible, which is a big improvement, and then later on when the deprivation is questioned. I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the Bill makes significant progress, and if he has suggestions for how the details may be nuanced still further, we are all ears because this is very much a collaborative process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

It could easily be a carer, yes. Some people have no family and in others cases the family are not the appropriate people to be the spokesperson for those who are mentally incapacitated. The appropriate person—the families and carers—will have greater powers to intervene or to object. Crucially, where there is no family or an appropriate person to advocate for the individual, the person has the right to an independent mental capacity advocate. So in all cases there should be a person whose role in the system is to advocate on behalf of the person whose liberty is being restricted.

[Paul Blomfield]

Does the Secretary of State accept that that access to an advocate should not be necessarily subject to a best interest test, as is being proposed, but should be a right?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to mitigate the effect on the provision of arts and culture of future changes in local authority budgets.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

Local authorities should recognise the huge benefits that investing in arts and culture can bring. Many already do, and are building successful partnerships to deliver arts and culture, and to develop new models of working together.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Government really ought to recognise the importance of investing in local authorities to deliver these services but, given the crisis in their funding, philanthropic giving is playing an increasingly important role. The Minister will be aware, I think, of the success of “Going Public”, which is a Museums Sheffield initiative on private giving. Will he agree to meet me and Museums Sheffield to discuss what more can be done on that front?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I would be delighted to, not least because the best local authorities are increasing their investment in arts and culture, as they see its value in strengthening the sense of place and ensuring that arts are available to all. There is no excuse for not doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment she has made of the contribution of local television services to broadcasting.

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)]

Local TV makes an important contribution to British broadcasting, with around 1.5 million households watching it each week. Twenty-one channels have launched since November 2013, with a further 13 due to come on air next year.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister has highlighted the successful development of local TV. That success is underpinned by a partnership with the BBC, which provides an income stream in return for sharing news content, but the arrangement is now at risk with new proposals for commissioning local content. Will the Minister agree to meet the local TV network to discuss how the proposed public service content fund could be used to provide continued support to local TV?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I would be delighted to do so. The detailed arrangements that were set out in the BBC White Paper are a matter for the BBC, but it will clearly want to consult and engage with all local media. I would be enthusiastic about meeting local TV providers with the hon. Gentleman. It is disappointing to have sedentary voices from the Opposition shouting that local TV is not relevant. I think it is hugely relevant, and I look forward to working across this House to deliver it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I do not recognise any of those figures, but I do recognise the need to make sure that apprenticeships are driven by the skills that employers need, so that they remain high quality and increasingly fill the skills gaps that have been left by an education system that was far too divorced from the world of work.

[Paul Blomfield]

What would the Minister say to Richard Wright, who speaks on behalf of Sheffield business as chief executive of the local chamber of commerce and who wrote to the Secretary of State saying that the funding cut for 18-year-olds in further education would remove money from where it can have the most effect in equipping young people with maths and English, and with the technical and vocational skills that are modern and relevant, to ensure that they are work-ready?

[Matthew Hancock]

The first thing I would say is that we have ameliorated the change so that no institution will lose more than 2% in the coming financial year. The second thing I would say is that we had to make this change because of the mess left in the public finances by the Labour party. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like it, but it is the truth, and until they get used to admitting their fault, nobody will trust them with the economy again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Matt Hancock

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I will, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work, especially in her constituency where new academies that link the world of work and the world of enterprise are springing up with her support.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T10. May I press the Minister for Universities and Science further on why he repeatedly rejected warnings on uncontrolled financial support to students in private higher education colleges? In March, he argued that the policy was important to enable private providers to continue with their expansion, but now that he is faced with a growing black hole in the BIS budget, he has reversed the policy. Will he explain why and will he guarantee no further cuts to student support to pay for his mistake?