Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence they have that problem gamblers are betting with illegal operators.
Answered by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
The Government is reviewing the Gambling Act 2005 to ensure it remains fit for the digital age. As part of its broad scope, the review called for evidence on the size of the black market for gambling in Great Britain and the ease with which consumers could access illegal gambling websites. The report by PwC on unlicensed gambling will be considered as part of the review.
The Gambling Commission assesses information gathered from multiple sources and works closely with partner agencies to prevent access to illegal websites by consumers in Great Britain. If the Commission decides to take action against an illegal operator, it will initially issue a Cease and Desist letter. If this action does not prove successful, it will use disruption techniques, which includes using its relationships with web-hosting companies to suspend or IP-block consumers in Great Britain from accessing websites, contacting payment providers to remove payment services, and liaising with social media sites to prevent websites appearing on search engines or being hosted. The Commission will also use some of the additional income that it is receiving from its recent fees uplift to increase its ability to tackle illegal gambling.
The Commission is aware that some illegal websites are targeted at people who experience significant harms from their gambling and self-excluded gamblers. The Commission is particularly focused on identifying and disrupting these illegal operators.
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking in conjunction with the Gambling Commission to prevent unlicensed online gambling.
Answered by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
The Government is reviewing the Gambling Act 2005 to ensure it remains fit for the digital age. As part of its broad scope, the review called for evidence on the size of the black market for gambling in Great Britain and the ease with which consumers could access illegal gambling websites. The report by PwC on unlicensed gambling will be considered as part of the review.
The Gambling Commission assesses information gathered from multiple sources and works closely with partner agencies to prevent access to illegal websites by consumers in Great Britain. If the Commission decides to take action against an illegal operator, it will initially issue a Cease and Desist letter. If this action does not prove successful, it will use disruption techniques, which includes using its relationships with web-hosting companies to suspend or IP-block consumers in Great Britain from accessing websites, contacting payment providers to remove payment services, and liaising with social media sites to prevent websites appearing on search engines or being hosted. The Commission will also use some of the additional income that it is receiving from its recent fees uplift to increase its ability to tackle illegal gambling.
The Commission is aware that some illegal websites are targeted at people who experience significant harms from their gambling and self-excluded gamblers. The Commission is particularly focused on identifying and disrupting these illegal operators.
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the conclusions of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report Review of unlicensed online gambling in the UK, published on 3 February 2021; in particular, the conclusion that unlicensed gambling has grown to a turnover of £1.4 billion with 460,000 users.
Answered by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
The Government is reviewing the Gambling Act 2005 to ensure it remains fit for the digital age. As part of its broad scope, the review called for evidence on the size of the black market for gambling in Great Britain and the ease with which consumers could access illegal gambling websites. The report by PwC on unlicensed gambling will be considered as part of the review.
The Gambling Commission assesses information gathered from multiple sources and works closely with partner agencies to prevent access to illegal websites by consumers in Great Britain. If the Commission decides to take action against an illegal operator, it will initially issue a Cease and Desist letter. If this action does not prove successful, it will use disruption techniques, which includes using its relationships with web-hosting companies to suspend or IP-block consumers in Great Britain from accessing websites, contacting payment providers to remove payment services, and liaising with social media sites to prevent websites appearing on search engines or being hosted. The Commission will also use some of the additional income that it is receiving from its recent fees uplift to increase its ability to tackle illegal gambling.
The Commission is aware that some illegal websites are targeted at people who experience significant harms from their gambling and self-excluded gamblers. The Commission is particularly focused on identifying and disrupting these illegal operators.
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the loss of (1) tax revenue, and (2) Horse Racing Levy income, due to illegal online gambling.
Answered by Baroness Penn - Minister on Leave (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State)
(1) The information requested is not available: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not make an estimate of the amount of revenue lost through illegal online gambling.
HMRC estimates the tax gap[1], the difference between the amount of tax that should, in theory, be paid to HMRC, and what is actually paid. For the tax year 2019 to 2020, the other excise duties tax gap, which includes betting and gaming, cider and perry, spirits-based ready-to-drink beverages and wine duties was £610 million.
(2) The Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB)[2] is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; and is required to collect a statutory levy, the Horserace Betting Levy. The information requested is not available from HMRC.
[1] Tax gap statistics are available at: Measuring tax gaps - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
[2] Horserace Betting Levy Board has a separate website: https://www.hblb.org.uk/
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the proposed HS2 Phase One viaducts at Wendover on (1) traffic flow, and (2) the future development of the A413.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
HS2 Ltd have been in consultation with the local authority Buckinghamshire Council about the impact of the Small Dean Viaduct at Wendover on A413 traffic flow. Agreed arrangements have been made so that the flow of the traffic underneath the viaduct will not be adversely affected. This has also been satisfied by road safety regulations.
In 2019 HS2 Ltd undertook a review of the design of the Small Dean Viaduct spanning the A413 south of Wendover with consideration for futureproofing the A413 for future growth. Currently the A413 is single carriageway. Public feedback has been taken through engagement events. In response to the study HS2 Ltd have confirmed that the building of the viaduct will not inhibit any future road widening of the A413. The outcome from this design review has shown that the dualling of the A413 can still be carried out with the viaduct in place, outside the remit of the HS2 programme. Moreover, the building of the viaduct will not inhibit future local authority development plans.
The outcome of this study has been reviewed by the local planning and highway authorities who are satisfied with this review and have no objection to the planned design of the proposed highway and viaduct design.
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to ensure that HS2 Ltd’s Noise Model is verified for accuracy against other domestic and international High-Speed Rail services.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
The local and route-wide sound, noise and vibration effects arising from the operation of HS2 were set out in the Environmental Statements for Phase One and Phase 2a. The predictions used in the assessments were based on noise and vibration models extensively validated against measurements of existing high-speed trains in the UK and abroad and supplemented with reasonably foreseeable worst case assumptions about the noise emitted by HS2 trains. Both Houses scrutinised such effects before passing the High- Speed Rail (London to West Midlands) 2017.
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of (1) the conclusions of the British Tunnelling Society in their 2019 article for Tunnels & Tunnelling International entitled ‘Tunnelling costs and production rates benchmarked’, which concluded that tunnelling costs decrease per unit length with increasing overall tunnelling length, and (2) the implications of these conclusions for estimates of the cost of the Wendover Short-Mined Tunnel Proposal on HS2 Phase One.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Department for Transport has incorporated the Infrastructure and Projects Authority top-down benchmarking methodology for tunnelling, developed in partnership with the British Tunnelling Society, as part of the Transport Infrastructure Efficiency Strategy benchmarking initiative.
The proposal for the short-mined tunnel at Wendover was rejected by the Government in 2018. We do not believe that this historical decision would have been any different had this methodology been applied at the time. The decision to reject the proposed short-mined tunnel at Wendover was based on the estimated cost of mitigating the poor ground conditions in the area of the proposed tunnel.
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether HS2 Ltd used (1) HS2: A Guide to Tunnelling Costs, published by HS2 Ltd on 11 June 2015, and (2) the Infrastructure Cost Review by HM Treasury and Infrastructure UK, published on 21 December 2010, as benchmarks for estimating the costs of the Wendover Short-Mined Tunnel proposal.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
HS2 Ltd used both of the reports referred to at (1) and (2) as guides to the development of cost estimates for the tunnels on the Phase One route. Both reports are principally focussed on bored tunnels, and their application to cost estimate development for a mined tunnel would be limited. HS2 Ltd did however develop a bottom-up cost estimate of a mined tunnel in the Wendover area, to aid options analysis.
When proposals for a mined tunnel at Wendover were re-submitted to the Department by mbpc Ltd on behalf of Wendover Parish Council after Royal Assent had been granted, HS2 Ltd subsequently undertook a separate comparative line by line cost analysis of the mbpc proposal, prior to the Department rejecting the mined tunnel proposal in 2018.
Producing a further bottom-up estimate with contractor involvement (following the Main Works Civils Contracts award in July 2017) was rejected in October 2018 on the grounds of cost, and this was communicated in writing to the constituency MP at that time.
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether HS2 Ltd has made changes to the design and scope of the HS2 Phase One programme since Royal Assent in 2017.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
Since Royal Assent for Phase One in 2017, and in line with best practice for any major infrastructure investment, HS2 Ltd has undertaken and completed a comprehensive review of scope ahead of HMG awarding Notice to Proceed in April 2020. This review concluded that the high-level design and scope of the programme was appropriate for meeting the scheme’s business case objectives. Overall, the maturity of design for the scheme has developed significantly, moving from high-level designs for the scheme in 2017 to shovel-ready designs for the major civils works in 2020. In some cases, this maturing design has resulted in localised changes in specification, design and scope. However, these changes do not impact on the overall commitment to meet the scheme’s objectives.
Asked by: Viscount Astor (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
The Leader of the House what assessment she has made of the impact of one minute speaking time limits during debates in the House on (1) the reputation of the House, and (2) effective scrutiny of Her Majesty's Government.
Answered by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Before the move to virtual proceedings one minute speaking time limits were very rare. Before Easter of this year there had not been one since 2016.
An inevitable consequence of lockdown has been that members have had more time to take part in debates. There has not been a corresponding increase in the amount of parliamentary time available. In fact, because of the public health, administrative and broadcasting constraints the House is working under there has been a reduction in the amount of time available.
Members can see how many others are signed up to speak so are able to make an informed decision as to whether they wish to contribute.