Steel Industry

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Tice]

The Minister indicates that I may be wrong. This is urgent and we cannot wait six to 12 months. We cannot run the risk of civil servants saying, “I’m sorry, but we haven’t got it done by March; it will be the summer.” I urge the Minister and her team to say, “Let’s get this out before Christmas.”

My five-point plan is first to take a strategic stake in British Steel to guarantee that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will not close. We cannot run that risk. Otherwise, if the electric arc furnaces are not built, we have nothing—niente, zip. The second part of my plan is to scrap the carbon taxes and the potential carbon border adjustment mechanism.

The third thing is to stop the dumping of cheap imports from nations such as China. That requires, if necessary, appropriate tariffs and protectionism. America is doing it to protect its own steel industry and we should do the same. Unbelievably, according to the House of Commons Library, which helpfully produced a 50-page report yesterday, just two weeks ago, far from increasing tariffs we had to reduce tariffs on imported steel because Port Talbot has closed. Seriously, you couldn’t make this up. It is absolute insanity that we are now reducing tariffs in order to import steel. With the long-term planning that should have happened under the Conservative Government, we could have worked out that if we shut Port Talbot we would be short of rolled steel. What are we going to do about it? That is what has gone on. So that is the third part of my plan.

The fourth part is to buy British. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero wants more and more wind turbines, but as I understand it not a single bit of British steel is used in all those turbines, which all come from overseas. If we want more turbines—some people do; some do not—maybe we should make it a condition that we use British steel to grow our own economy with more jobs and more money. Those four things plus the fifth thing are all deliverable by this Government. That is what I urge the Minister to consider.

The fifth thing is the right thing to do. I accept that it is not going to happen, but if we want cheaper electricity and to be more competitive, the fastest way to do it is to scrap net zero. That would bring down prices. It would stop us wasting tens of billions of pounds and stop blighting our countryside with thousands and thousands of pylons, including in my constituency. The first four components of my five-point plan the Government can and should do to protect our steel industry, which is strategically vital. Not to do so is negligent to the point of criminality.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

Do you want to intervene, Minister?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Anderson, I am “you”.

[Lee Anderson]

Sorry, Mrs Harris. I will wind up now because I am quite angry with the madness of this place that we work in. There are families and communities out there relying on us to save their jobs, and Members opposite sit there with glazed expressions on their faces. Come the next election, people in those communities will boot you all out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I am sure the Minister has many football skills. Last night one of the players, the young fellow Price, scored a hat trick—yes, it was an admirable victory. If everybody showed that backbone and strength of character, certainly we would be in a better place. I thank my hon. Friend—I know that was moving away completely from the subject matter but he nonetheless reinforced the point to be made.

Northern Ireland plays an important role in the success of the UK steel industry, although back in 2022 that was under attack from the damages of the Northern Ireland protocol and the outbreak of war in Ukraine. It was said at the time that steel exports from Northern Ireland could face up to 25% tax and tariffs, but it is good to report today that that has since been addressed by the Windsor framework. That is one of the positives that came out of that process: I wish there were more.

What springs to mind is the 1,100 steel businesses across all parts of the United Kingdom and the 33,400 jobs that hinge on them—we cannot ignore those; they are so important. We have seen recently the threats to job security due to decisions to close production in certain steel plants. Only two weeks ago, Tata shut down its blast furnace 4, which was the final furnace operating at the UK’s biggest steelworks in Port Talbot. That resulted in 2,800 job losses across south Wales, not to mention that Port Talbot was pivotal to steel construction in Northern Ireland. That is why, in debates on steel, we do not necessarily have to have a manufacturing base in our constituency to see the benefits. The benefits for us in Northern Ireland were quite clear: the steel produced in Port Talbot came to Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness rightly raised concerns about the impact that our net zero advancements could have on the steel sector. It is crucial that we get this correct while ensuring a proper balance. Our defence industry relies heavily on domestic home-grown steel to build tanks and warships. That raises issues of us potentially relying too much on foreign imports, which the hon. Member referred. We should not ignore that, and our focus should be on providing incentives to the fantastic local companies we already have and putting them front and centre to the UK steel sector’s success. We must modernise to advance our steel industry and properly take care of it and get it right together.

We must also be able to source steel locally; doing so is of major importance for many industries across the United Kingdom, from aerospace and defence to boats and other transport. For us in Northern Ireland, the aerospace sector is very important.

I know the debate is not about this but I want to ask the Minister a question about Harland & Wolff that I had hoped to ask in Defence questions. Will the Minister give Northern Ireland Members some update on where we are with Harland & Wolff? During my discussion with the Minister about Defence questions on Monday, the Minister said, “Jim, ask this question and I’ll be happy to come back with an answer.” Harland & Wolff is really important, No.1, for the jobs it provides, but also for the connectivity that we have, with all parts of the United Kingdom coming together. Defence and aerospace are important for our manufacturing base in Northern Ireland, but also for the continuation of how we work better together.

I support our steel system. I want the best for it. We all want the best for it and I know that. I also hear and respect the concerns of other Members about its future. And there is no doubt at all that more needs to be done to preserve and protect it.

In conclusion, society will progress and changes will be made, but it is important that we remember the benefits that our steel sector brings to the United Kingdom economy. Moreover, there are the jobs that it provides for my constituents in Strangford and for people further afield—indeed, in all areas of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So, I sincerely look forward to hearing from the Minister and assessing what steps our Government will take to preserve our steel sector, and I have hope—much hope—that that action will allow for all of our nations to play their part together.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Clive Jones, to speak.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on securing this debate. It is also a pleasure to speak for the first time in my capacity as a Lib Dem Front-Bench spokesman.

Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We need to build the crucial infrastructure required to generate sustainable growth and to safeguard our national security, which must be important to all of us in this Chamber today.

Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that new technologies will lead to carbon emissions from steelmaking in Britain falling, the neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Conservative Government’s disastrous legacy. This Government finally need to move from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the steel industry on a sustainable footing.

The steel industry’s situation illustrates that we desperately need a real industrial strategy that includes a proper plan for steel. Although I welcome the Government’s Green Paper, which was published earlier this week, and hope that it will provide our business community with much-needed certainty in the eight sectors that the Government have highlighted as being growth drivers, the absence of the word “steel” is strikingly apparent.

We accept the need to move towards less carbon-intensive modes of production, but it is vital that any job losses are mitigated by reskilling, retraining and new green investment. We must be certain that this investment in skills and regeneration is properly targeted where it can have the greatest impact on communities that currently rely heavily on steel production.

With 2,800 jobs set to be lost, the Government need to take action as soon as possible to bring certainty for those employed in steelworks. So, I ask the Minister today what the Department is doing to ensure that job losses are mitigated, and how will the steel strategy, which is set to be published next year, link to an industrial strategy?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister, Greg Smith, to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing this debate. If I may, I will read a message that I received from someone I know:

“This Westminster Hall debate in infuriating. Talk is cheap!”

I highlight that because we all seem to agree how important the steel industry is. I acknowledge the past and that not all of that lies squarely on the Minister’s shoulders. I ask her to include in her response the steps that the Government will take to secure that future.

As the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) eloquently put it, there are advantages to the more advanced technologies, but, as clearly laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness, there are practical reasons why they may not become reality—and we need to deal with reality. We all seem to accept and agree—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members that interventions are meant to be short and to the point?

[James McMurdock]

Apologies. We all agree that this is vital; will the Minister please lay out how it will become practical?

Business Confidence

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, about his community and the local economy in Northern Ireland. This matters so much. These people are stridently working to earn wages every week—not only for themselves, but for their sectors, families and communities.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the online challenge, which is gargantuan. It is absolutely right for us to seek to future-proof many of these businesses, which have been going for decades. It is difficult to start a business, let alone maintain one. If we let businesses fail because we do not support them for the future, we will look back in real horror.

Senior businesses, let alone small businesses, are already warning that the employment package announced last week will limit investment and reduce growth and jobs in years to come. Of particular concern is the cost imposed on small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses is leading the charge on that, warning that small businesses will be looking at the changes with trepidation. The Government have only just managed to meet their self-imposed target of 100 days. They have left 70 measures to come in for 2026, meaning that uncertainty for businesses involved will carry on. That is a real concern.

Comments from Ministers over the past few weeks have caused chaos. First, the Leader of the House stated that there would have been a real risk of a run on the pound if the Government had not withdrawn winter fuel support from our pensioners; in the meantime, the Prime Minister had to disavow the Transport Secretary’s comments, stating that she did not speak for the Government. I say to Ministers that they speak not only for their Departments but for industry and sectors. They would do well to stop walking around with placards and remember that they are, allegedly, running the country.

I appreciate that the Prime Minister is new, and collective responsibility among Ministers is a cornerstone of Cabinet government. I am sure that this Minister will be working diligently to do what he can to support that. I was a Minister for a number of years—I was Employment Minister during the covid years—and I know how difficult it is. I genuinely wish Ministers well. Holding this debate today and being really honest about businesses’ and our constituents’ concerns has meant that the issues have been aired and heard. The national interest demands that the Government get a grip so that they can unleash the investment through the summit, spur economic growth, deliver those local jobs and live up to the promises that they have made to the British people. Otherwise, we are in for a long and costly five years.

In closing, I ask the Minister to reassure my businesses and our communities that the Government truly understand the impact of instability. What action will the Government take about Crawley college, for example? Unfortunately, it is shutting down engineering places as we strive for the new future. That concerns me because many businesses in East Grinstead and beyond need such engineering and apprenticeship places to support their future. Ministers should be truly working across Government to make sure that the next five years are a success for all our communities and constituencies, so that we have the public services and local economies that we are all striving for and aspire to.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 5.8 pm. All Members should take that into consideration and keep their remarks under five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

No, I am not going to take an intervention. I feel quite strongly that if an hon. Gentleman cannot make it to the start of a debate, wanders in halfway through and then seeks to make an intervention to ask a question—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we keep it to the debate, please?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will, but I would just like to refute this. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman takes out Hansard, he will find the answer to his question in the first half of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) is right that business is in an uncertain holding pattern and that SMEs are the lifeblood of our community. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) is quite right to say that his community is rich with potential. He expressed concerns, however, over the delay of the decision on the lower Thames crossing, and said that he thought the Government should have taken a more professional approach towards DP World. I agree with him. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) rightly pointed out that between 2010 and 2024, growth was higher in the UK economy than in all the main EU economies, and that there is opportunity if we focus on entrepreneurship and on rural businesses.

Throughout this debate we have highlighted the slump in confidence since Labour came to power—and not just in business confidence, but in consumer confidence. Why is that? Well, do not take my word for it. The ex-chief economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane, said that the Government’s approach has generated

“fear and foreboding and uncertainty among consumers, among businesses, among investors”.

Labour’s plan appears to have been, “We’ll come into power, we’ll say it’s all terrible and so much worse than we thought it was, we’ll say that there’s this black hole”—a black hole, by the way, that Treasury officials were unable to find when the Financial Times asked to see the data behind it—“and this will give us political cover for long-planned tax increases.”

The problem is that political games in this case have been paid for in lost jobs and futures. After nearly four months of inaction, this inept political vacuum has been filled by speculation, rumour, kite flying and denial. The “So what?” is that Government incompetence has cost jobs. The CBI has just said that it is clear that firms are holding back from employment because of Budget fears. The consultancy AJ Bell has said that directors of listed companies have doubled sales of shares since the general election—that is businesses voting with their feet. Evelyn Partners has said that a third of private business owners with turnovers in excess of £5 million have accelerated their exit strategies. Why? Because of fears about capital gains tax and inheritance tax relief. This is our entrepreneurial future being destroyed by the inaction of the Government.

It does not matter whether the rumours are true or false; the fact that they are rumours is having devastating impacts in its own right. Now the direction is clear, and it appears that the Government will increase employer national insurance contributions. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, that is a clear breach of the manifesto promise. When considering the issue previously, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an increase was an anti-business measure—I agree. The Office for Budget Responsibility has told us that an increase in employer national insurance contributions will lower wages.

Labour is pulling off the triple: misleading the public, harming business and lowering wages—all with the same policy. The more business sees of this Government, the less it likes them. When will this party of opposition that finds itself in government get a grip?

International Women’s Day: Language in Politics

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I also thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing today’s debate. It is always an honour to be here to mark International Women’s Day.

Today’s debate calls for respectful language to be used in this place and in the upcoming general election, as the public look to us for leadership and example. It is crucial that we respect each other and those who elected us to be their representative.

I reflect on my nine years of serving the people of Swansea East in Parliament, and I am confident that I have built mutually respectful relationships both across the House and throughout the communities that I work with. Like many colleagues, I have had my fair share of abuse, particularly online. It saddens me that it is generally nothing to do with my politics or the causes that I champion; it is always because of my gender or my appearance—my hair colour, my choice of outfits, my size, or my glasses.

Just this week, following a debate in Westminster Hall, I was subject to some very interesting abuse from people who purport to disagree with my stance on an issue. However, their comments on X, formerly known as Twitter, had little to do with what I said. To give a flavour:

“I wouldn't let that thing decide what boxer shorts I was wearing in the morning.”

That says more about them than me, I think.

“It is of my opinion that you are obese. See a doctor immediately. Bring in affordability checks for all the”

stuff—I have used another word instead of theirs—

“you must eat to make you that fat.”

Another wrote:

“F these blue hair fat ugly freaks.”

And another:

“Shouldn’t this buffoon be serving jelly and custard to five year olds or on lolly pop duty?”

As a former dinner lady, I do not find that at all insulting.

That is just a snapshot of the disrespectful, misogynistic rhetoric that these bullies—that is what they are—feel that they are entitled to post, just because we are MPs. I agree that the language we use in this place is important, but there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.

Members would be disappointed if I did not talk about the menopause. Earlier this month, Avanti showcased its menopause toolkit for staff. It contained, among other things: a fan “for hot sweats”; tissues for “if you’re feeling a bit emotional”; a paperclip “to help you keep it all together”; a jelly baby “in case you feel like biting someone’s head off”; and a pencil “to write down things you might forget.” That is hardly the kind of language we should use about anyone, let alone women who are perimenopausal or menopausal. It is insulting, and it belittles symptoms that are so debilitating for many. I am sure it was done with the best intention and was perhaps meant to bring a bit of humour to the situation, but the choice of language is so important. I know from the communications I have received that it was deeply offensive, not only to a lot of women but to men, too. People working for the company were disappointed that this was Avanti’s response.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We are hearing terrible things in this discussion about banter. People say things are just banter, but banter can be very offensive. We should not be intimidated by people who say that we cannot take banter. It is important that people realise that some banter is offensive.

[Carolyn Harris]

I agree. Before I was elected, my husband always told me that I would need to have a thick skin. Well, it has gone past having a thick skin. At the end of the day, I am a human being. People would not speak to a person on the street like that, so why should I or anyone else have to experience it online? It is not banter; it is degrading.

My mission is to ensure that our conversations and the language we use normalises the menopause in communities locally, nationally and even globally. I have had some exciting opportunities to do this, but none more exciting than the opportunity I had last week to join a team of wonderful friends and colleagues, with good knowledge and expertise, in going to Eastwood Park women’s prison in the constituency of the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall). Menopause has over 40 symptoms, ranging from anxiety and brain fog to urinary tract infection and vaginal dryness. Many women struggle to navigate this time of their life, and they suffer as a result. Imagine not being able to pop out for fresh air during a hot flush; having night sweats while sleeping on a plastic mattress; or suffering crippling anxiety while locked up alone. That is the reality for women in prison. The difference I saw in the women between the Monday and the Friday was mind-blowing. We delivered a message that made a difference. I am hugely grateful to Davina McCall, Hazel Hayden and the Bristol menopause clinic, Kate Rowe-Ham, Lavina Mehta, Michelle Griffith Robinson and Kate Muir, who came with me to do this work. I am even more grateful to Eastwood Park’s governor, Zoë Short, and her team—Abbie Garrett and Alison Rivers—not only for trusting us to share the message with the women, but for being so proactive in supporting them.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Lady is making a terrific point. She reminds me of something I read by Mariella Frostrup in The Times this week, referencing the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s guidance on the workplace treatment of women with menopause. The guidance said that it should be treated as a disability. Does the hon. Lady share my frustration that that completely misunderstands and denigrates what the menopause is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris]

I totally agree. The menopause is not a disability and should not be regarded as such, but any focus on it—and the EHRC brought focus to the menopause —makes a huge difference to the messaging, how women feel and how employers take notice of what they should be doing.

I will cut my remarks short, as I have taken up more than enough time. As we look to the general election, can we reflect on how we speak, and the choices we make when we address others? Respect earns respect in this place, in our communities, in the country and beyond.

Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on leading this petition debate.

It is an honour to speak about a topic that I am truly passionate about: reducing gambling harm and protecting the most vulnerable. According to the Gambling Commission, 22.5 million people in this country gamble, which equates to about 44% of the adult population. The overwhelming majority do so without any issue, but not everyone. When it comes to those for whom gambling is an addiction, the Gambling Commission and the Government have a duty to act responsibly and protect them from harm. The publication of the long overdue gambling White Paper last April was therefore widely welcomed by the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm, which I chair, as well as by a growing community of organisations, charities, academics and clinicians, all intent on reducing gambling harm, protecting the vulnerable and saving lives.

While concerns remain about the consultation times on the proposals in the White Paper and how long it will subsequently take us to get where we need to be, what is important today is that we lay out why the changes are so critical—specifically, the positive impact that affordability checks will have in reducing harm and saving lives.

In its patterns of play research, the Gambling Commission identified that the most profitable 1% of accounts make up 70.4% of the gross gambling yield, echoing previous research from the University of Liverpool. The gambling industry relies on a hugely disproportionate percentage of its profits coming from those affected by gambling addiction, who are subsequently harmed by unaffordable losses.

Historically, the industry has recognised the need for responsible gambling and ensuring that customers spend within their means. In 2018—that seems a life-time ago—the Senet Group, the industry standards body that was later absorbed into the Betting and Gaming Council, set out three steps that responsible gamblers should adhere to: only gamble what you can afford, set limits and do not chase losses. Suggesting that someone gripped by addiction would be able to make rational decisions on what is affordable is naive. Nobody would even contemplate that for any other addiction. The logical way forward would be to proactively introduce affordability checks on anyone gambling larger sums.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on the work that she does on this matter. Does she agree that primarily the focus should be on protecting the most vulnerable people in our communities? It is not about being anti-gambling per se. The industry has failed to act, which is why measures are needed to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. It is a small price to pay to protect those people.

[Carolyn Harris]

I totally agree. Anti-gambling is one thing that I am not. I am very fond of visiting the racetrack, as I am the bingo hall. My motive does not come from being anti-gambling. I want to protect vulnerable people.

The logical way forward would be to protect and proactively introduce affordability checks on anyone gambling larger sums. Those would not stop anyone who can afford it betting as much as they choose, but it would stop those who cannot. After carefully considering the evidence, the Government included a consultation on two forms of affordability checks in their proposals in the White Paper. The first would consist of background checks on those spending moderate levels, which would look at financial vulnerability. The proposed limits for the checks to be triggered would be a net loss of £125 within a month or £500 within a year.

The second would be a more enhanced check for those regularly spending higher levels, which might indicate a binge gambling problem. The proposed thresholds for them would be a £1,000 net loss within 24 hours and £2,000 within 90 days—halved for those aged between 18 and 24, given that that group has already been identified as being at greater risk of harm.

Although many have jumped to condemn the checks, it is important to be clear about who would be impacted by them. Recent research conducted by Dr Philip Newall from the University of Bristol and Dr David Zendle from the University of York using open banking data found that the unharmed gamblers have an average monthly spend of £16.41, compared with £208.91 for the highest risk group. That suggests that risk-free gamblers would very rarely trigger any affordability checks. If anything, the figures highlight the fact that the proposed thresholds are far too high and could be set at a lower level. To be clear, the initial background checks of financial vulnerability would be frictionless, using publicly available information such as credit reference data alongside negative indicators such as county court judgments and insolvency checks. The enhanced checks would initially use open banking, with more intrusive checks only being triggered further down the line.

It must also be put into perspective that the enhanced checks would be narrowly targeted to around 3% of the online gambling accounts affected. I can say at this point that it is the online accounts that are key. Online is where the most harm is taking place. It is where people—incredibly vulnerable people—can spend money they just do not have, with no intervention, with no contact with anyone that might notice a problem, and, until last week’s announcement, without limits. Online is causing harm at rates far in excess of any land-based venue, and it is important that we keep that in mind. The APPG’s focus has always been on that, and we have continually called for the likes of horseracing tracks and bingo halls to be considered separately in legislation.

For the 3% of affected online gambling accounts, the vast majority of checks would be frictionless. The Gambling Commission has already advocated for the focus of checks to be on publicly available data. Research suggests that only 0.3% of account holders would be subject to the level of checks that would require them to hand over any additional financial information. However, it seems that the smaller number of enhanced checks that would require consent on the part of the individual are being used as a scaremongering tactic to turn the debate on affordability into a controversial topic. Given that those checks have such a minimal impact, it is difficult to see why they have been contested so vehemently.

We know that the industry has stirred up the controversy by exaggerating the levels of intrusion and suggesting that the checks would drive gamblers to the black market. That loses sight of the whole point of the checks, which is to protect gamblers from harm by ensuring that they are spending within their means. Surely that is in the interest of the industry, which currently has a reputation for allowing those unable to control their gambling to gamble far in excess of what they can afford to spend.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some strong points, and she has done some excellent work on this issue. When one talks to people who have lived and are living with serious gambling addictions, what comes across very strongly is the way they alter their behaviours to avoid accountability and scrutiny, to the point of using multiple identities. That being the case, is the hon. Lady confident that these kinds of checks, some of which will be intrusive, as she said herself, will drive the better outcomes we all hope to see?

[Carolyn Harris]

While we do not have all the answers now, that does not mean we should not do anything to protect those who are vulnerable. It is our responsibility to make sure that the system works to protect vulnerable gamblers.

It is ironic that this is the same industry that just a few years ago set out the three steps for responsible gambling, which included only gambling what is affordable —the same industry that still spends big bucks on “Safer Gambling” logos and promoting safer gambling week. It seems to be a case of talking the talk, but being totally unwilling to walk the walk and actually implement the measures that could protect the most vulnerable customers.

As I said at the beginning, we know that the vast majority of the 22.5 million people gambling in this country enjoy doing so safely and within their own limits. Nobody, least of all me, wants to prevent them from being able to do that. We have already established that the number of people who could trigger a check as a result of their spending, even if it is money they can afford to spend, is negligible. The argument against affordability checks is therefore very difficult to grasp, when a slight inconvenience for a very small number of people will protect many more.

The argument for affordability checks is comprehensive. It will stop those gripped by addiction from gambling more than they can afford. It will reduce the levels of harm we are seeing. It will protect the industry’s most vulnerable customers. Most importantly—and I say this because there are people in this room today who have lost children because of this addiction—it will save lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir George.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on leading this debate. She and I usually have discussions about squash, but I am here to talk about another of my hobbies: horseracing. I have a lifelong interest in and passion for racing. In the past, I have owned legs and hairs of racehorses—not very successfully. At the moment on the farm at home we have a brood mare and we have youngstock, and my ambition—as crazy as it may sound—is to get those horses on to the racecourse. At the moment, the greater problem than affordability checks is dealing with mud fever, but affordability checks are very important. Like everyone else, I know that problem gambling is a major problem, but there is concern that there will be a severe unintended impact on the funding of horseracing if the affordability checks go forward in their existing form.

Horseracing is largely funded through the levy. In recent years additional funding has come in through media rights and sponsorship, but largely it comes from the horserace betting levy, which came in in the early 1960s. I personally think that the Government went down the wrong road with horseracing. It would have been better if we had what is known as a parimutuel form of gambling. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), that is why the prize money is so much higher in places like Hong Kong and Japan, which have incredibly well-regulated industries too.

Horseracing depends to a dramatic extent on the levy. It is quite clear from what I see and the feedback I get that the affordability checks in their current form will have a serious impact on the takings from the levy. Looking at the prize money, horseracing and its funding is facing a real crisis in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said that we have the best horseracing in the world, and we do, but that is increasing in risk and becoming an anachronism. There is a real worry that if we let this go on horseracing, will wither on the vine in this country.

Look at the horses in training sales from Tattersalls at Newmarket last autumn. A lot of those horses would have traditionally come out of flat racing, gone into national hunt racing and remained in the UK for racing. They are now going all around the world, to the US or Australia, and there are emerging new industries—in Dubai with the Meydan, and in places such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which are making a real impact. A lot of horses are going to those places and a lot of British owners are racing out there. Members may have watched the racing on Saturday afternoon. The very well-known racing figure Sir Alex Ferguson—where was he? He was at Meydan, not watching his horses run at Kempton. I am worried that that is where we may be heading.

We have heard great stories today; everyone has plugged the racecourses we have all around the UK, and we have heard how important they are for their local economies. That is very true, but there is one point I would highlight, which I picked up in the Racing Post over the weekend. An article said that the Grand National meeting every year puts more money into the Liverpool economy than the Eurovision song contest did last year. We see that repeated at Cheltenham, York and Goodwood and at the festivals that take place all around the country. That is at risk.

The racing supply chain extends far beyond that. It extends into the training centres and into the countryside and on to the studs. There are places where horses are pre-trained, and, importantly, there are places where horses are retrained. When horses have finished their racing lives, they are retrained for alternative uses and activities. The tentacles of racing extend a long way, not just into the countryside but into the towns and the licensed betting offices on the high street. I know that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has a concern about those, but certainly in the town that I represent, there has not been a dramatic increase in LBOs. They are a very important part—

[Carolyn Harris]

No, I do not.

[Peter Aldous]

If I have misinterpreted the hon. Lady, I apologise profusely. LBOs are very important on the high streets. They also tend to have a family feel about them in that the staff, many of whom now are women, have a good family relationship with the punters. If people start getting out of control, they very quickly say, “Hang on, do you know where you are going on that?” There is a long supply chain.

We have also heard about unintrusive and frictionless checks. The feedback that I get is that they are very difficult to put into practice. We will either see the rise of the black market—the large article on the front of the Racing Post indicates that that is a reality—or a lot of small punters will say, “Well, I give up. I’m not going to do it.” That then impacts on the levy and it spirals down to the impact on racing.

Finally, there is an element of hypocrisy about this in that the lottery is not included. The lottery is great and it is probably one of the best legacies of the Major Government. Its impact has been profound and positive. When I was growing up, very rarely did we win Olympic gold medals. I remember listening to David Hemery when he won in 1968 in Mexico. We now win in so many different sports, and that is the direct result of the lottery. The lottery is a great thing, but it is a game of chance rather than a game of skill. It is random betting and it can take over people’s lives. I remember one statistic put to me that if I gambled on the national lottery every year since Moses was pulled out of the bulrushes, I still would not have won. We need to look at all forms of gambling and betting together.

In conclusion, I was reading the Racing Post a few months ago. One of its leading journalists, Chris Cook, son of the former Labour Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, made a comment that left me thinking. He said that you would not have expected a Conservative Government to do this to horseracing. I agree with him. On that point, I urge the Minister, who is listening very intently to the great speeches that we have had—

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I praise my hon. Friend for being a doughty campaigner on this important issue and thank him for that. He has rightly raised this with me on a number of occasions. The safety and wellbeing of everyone taking part in sport is hugely important. That includes looking at image and performance-enhancing drugs. Since I last met him, I have raised this with UKAD. We must bring about better collaboration across the Department to ensure that we tackle this issue.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to tackle gambling-related harms.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

I know that the hon. Member has campaigned on this issue for a number of years, and I thank her for her ongoing engagement. Our White Paper sets out measures to tackle products and practices that can drive gambling-related harm, and they include financial risk checks, stake limits on online slots and the new statutory levy.

[Carolyn Harris]

Loot boxes in gaming are unquestionably a slippery path to normalising gambling. This week’s announcement on loot boxes nowhere near fulfils the commitment made in the 2019 Conservative party manifesto. With 55,000 young people aged 11 to 16 already classed as problem gamblers, and tens of thousands more considered at risk, why are the Government neglecting future generations by failing to tackle and prevent gambling disorder at its root?

[Stuart Andrew]

We have gone a long way in the White Paper to do exactly what the hon. Member says, and we have committed to ensuring that video games can be enjoyed safely by everyone. We convened a technical working group to improve protections on loot boxes, and it has published new guidance this week, which we welcome. If that guidance is implemented, it has the potential to meet our objectives, but I assure her that we will closely monitor what the industry does, to ensure that it implements the guidance in full. We will provide an update in 12 months and keep the option of legislating open.

Eating Disorders Awareness Week

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Members should be aware that I intend to begin calling the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I have to impose a five-minute limit on speeches.