Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Clive Efford and Mark Field

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State had the chance to speak to the Sri Lankan ambassador regarding his defence attaché Brigadier Priyanka Fernando and his behaviour on 4 February, when he made throat-slitting gestures to Tamil protesters? If somebody else incited hatred in that way on our streets, they would be interviewed by the police. Will the Minister make arrangements for Brigadier Priyanka Fernando to be interviewed by the police about that crime?

[Mark Field]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the UK takes this incident very seriously. When I spoke recently to Foreign Minister Marapana, he left me in no doubt that the Sri Lankan Government were treating it with the seriousness that it deserves. They have informed the UK Government that they have ordered the defence attaché to return to Colombo from London with immediate effect for consultations while the incident is thoroughly investigated. I hope that the UK and Sri Lanka bilateral relationship will remain strong and co-operative.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Clive Efford and Mark Field

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, and I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing it; it is important and has certainly attracted a lot of support on both sides of the House.

I get a feeling of déjà vu when I come to these debates, particularly when I read the briefings from the Association of British Bookmakers—I think I could have written the opening sentence of the one I have here before I even received it. It says:

“There is no objective evidence from either past British Gambling Prevalence surveys or Government Health surveys that problem gambling levels in the UK are rising.”

We ask the question, “Is there a problem with FOBT machines?”, and we get an answer to a completely different question. This has got to stop. That sort of propaganda does the industry no service whatsoever, and it is not fooling anyone.

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Efford]

No, I will not, because of the time. I have argued consistently that if we are going to move ahead with any restrictions on FOBTs, we need to do so on the basis of evidence. People are calling for a £2 stake, but there is no evidence that that will be any safer than the existing stake.

However, in terms of the issues confronting us—as many hon. Members have said today—this is about location more than anything else. It is about the proximity of these machines to people who may be vulnerable to developing a gambling habit and to falling foul of their propensity to gamble too much by going into a betting shop and losing more money than they can afford to. There is no denying that a high proportion of these machines are in proximity to socially deprived communities, and a disproportionate amount of the money gambled in them comes from people on low incomes.

We hear the figures about the numbers of betting shops and all the rest of it, but it is clear that the trend in betting shops is for more money to come from B2 machines than from over-the-counter betting on horse-racing, dog-racing or football, as more of that sort of betting moves online. The growth in the gross gambling yield from machines has more than covered the decline in over-the-counter betting, with a combined gambling yield in 2014-15 of £3.74 billion, which is higher than in any previous year recorded by the Gambling Commission. The yield from the machines has been higher than that of over-the-counter betting every year since 2011-12 and now represents 54.2% of the combined gross gambling yield. The number of premises has been in decline since March 2014: there were 299 fewer premises on 30 September 2015 than on 31 March 2014. However, the number of B2 machines has increased year on year since records began in 2008-09 and has now reached 34,500.

We have a growing problem in our communities, given the proximity of FOBTs to locations where, I think, they do not belong. Anyone who has been to discuss these machines with me knows I loathe them. I do not think they belong in our high streets, but they are an unintended consequence of the Gambling Act 2005, and they are now there. Many businesses are predicated on the machines being there and if they were to be removed, people would lose their jobs and livelihoods, which is why we must move forward on the basis of evidence.

We are told that there is no problem, or that the problem lies elsewhere, or perhaps that the problem is not getting any worse, so we should not do anything about it—or a combination of all those arguments. However, the number of people in treatment, according to GamCare, is up by 39%, and the number of people who present problems as a result of playing FOBT roulette machines represent 26% of those who are in contact with GamCare. The number of calls from people addicted to FOBTs has gone up by 50% over the last five years.

I accept that there is a growing problem online. For the first time ever, the current figures show that the number of people presenting problems to GamCare from gambling online has increased over the number of people who are presenting problems from machine-related abuse. However, that can be explained by the increase in the number of people who are contacting GamCare and does not show a reduction in the problems from FOBTs. It shows an overall increase of people who are presenting with problems, and we have to address that issue going forward.

The Gambling Commission wrote to the Secretary of State in March 2015 about the conclusions of research carried out by the Responsible Gambling Trust and NatCen Social Research. It was based on people who gamble from accounts, because they can be tracked and their gambling behaviour can be followed. There were some interesting factors: 37% of the number of people who have loyalty cards or gambling accounts said that at some time, they had a problem with machine gambling—so a very high proportion are presenting with a problem.

The Gambling Commission says that the betting industry needs to increase the number of people who have accounts, so that detailed research can be carried out on what is going on with these machines. In the letter, it states:

“Consequently, we recommend encouraging operators to promote account-based play with the aim of increasing uptake significantly. If they succeed, playing anonymously might itself become a useful indicator of risk. If operators fail to make sufficient progress with promoting account-based play, then the case for making it mandatory would need very serious consideration.”

Will the Minister therefore consider, in his next discussions with the betting industry, whether that should be made mandatory? If we are not making any progress, we are just not finding out what the problem is. We have the technology. We can do it and we need to make more progress in this area.

I say to the betting industry, “Make this move before it is forced on you, or you will lose the machines completely.” I think that the time is coming when action on these machines will be forced on the gambling industry. If there is not a problem, let us have the data and the account-based play, so that we can demonstrate that there is no harm.

The time has come to apply the precautionary principle. The betting industry says there is no evidence to prove that the machines are harmful, but there is no evidence to prove that they are not, so we should apply the precautionary principle that if it cannot be proved that they are not harmful, let us remove them until there is proof that they are not. It is time to act. The data are available to the Minister so let us move towards account-based playing of the machines and ensure that we satisfy ourselves that it is safe to have them on our high streets. Otherwise, they should be removed.

In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister a few questions. The Government are carrying out a review of the £50 stake, which is why the triennial review has been delayed. When will the former be concluded and when will the triennial review of stakes and prizes start? What steps is he taking to investigate money laundering—several hon. Members highlighted that this morning—and whether there is a money laundering problem?

There is concern about late-night betting and the fact that stakes on these machines tend to increase late at night. Should we review the opening hours and the rules that allow live racing from Hong Kong to be played and betting shops to stay open even later so that more people can play these machines? Should we mandate account-based play on these machines? Will the Minister support giving local authorities, once and for all, the powers they are demanding so they can control the proliferation of betting shops in our communities?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Clive Efford and Mark Field

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Like all London MPs, particularly inner-London MPs, I welcome any efforts that boost supply and tackle what has become an emergency situation for our capital city. Research by the City of London Corporation found that even the cheapest 10% of London’s houses are affordable only for the highest earning 25% of workers, and businesses now believe that housing supply costs are a significant risk to the capital’s economy.

We have heard contributions from MPs who represent Oxford, Bath, Sheffield and other cities, and it is increasingly apparent to me that there is now also an acute need for specific, London-based solutions to housing costs, so I hope that we can capitalise on the enthusiasm that we have heard in the House today towards devolution in that regard. I would like briefly to share with the Minister the thoughts of my two local authorities, and those of local housing associations, in the hope that we can start to carve out a proper London housing policy.

In almost every speech that I have made in this House on housing in the past 15 years, I have lamented the increasing polarisation of central London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) referred. Those on medium incomes, and increasingly even those on high incomes, have been pushed out to cater for a new global super-rich and those who qualify for precious social housing. I say to my hon. Friend, and to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), that as Londoners we recognise that we are an attractive city, largely because of the social capital that generations of Londoners before us have built up, but many future generations of Londoners will not have the opportunity of benefiting from that social capital.

[Clive Efford]

The right hon. Gentleman represents a major part of central London that has some of the highest land and housing values. Will he answer the question that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) completely avoided and say whether he agrees that the two-for-one policy is absolutely worthless unless the income from the sale of those houses is reinvested in the same local authority area in central London?

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Clive Efford and Mark Field

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

I was a Greenwich councillor when we first had the idea to redevelop the local peninsula, which eventually led to the building of the Greenwich dome. Without these iconic projects and without public money—people often forget that we got a lot of investment from Europe to decontaminate the site at north Greenwich—it is sometimes impossible to regenerate very expensive contaminated sites. However, once we take the brave decision, as we did in east London and in Greenwich, the regeneration takes place, and we now have one of the most iconic entertainment centres in Europe.

[Mr Field]

I accept that, although in many ways the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There was a sense in the immediate aftermath of 1 January 2000 that that area was going to be a white elephant and it was the private sector, in the form of the group belonging to Philip Anschutz, which had the vision to drive that area forward that made a difference. But it took some years for that to fall into place, which is why we need to keep an eagle eye on exactly what happens on the Olympic site from next September to ensure that 2013, 2014 and 2015 are not wasted years. They need to be years when we ensure the continued improvement of that site to make it an attractive place to live and work, and, potentially, an entertainment destination site well beyond that for West Ham United fans. One hopes that it will also be used for other athletics events and perhaps as a large-scale entertainment site, given the transport links in place.

I wish briefly to discuss the elements of the Bill that have been debated, about which I have expressed some of my reservations. We have had a useful debate about policing. This is a matter for not only the Metropolitan police, but the intelligences services, which are playing a huge role in this field and will continue to do so. One should not underestimate that in the context of the security implications of these Olympics. Equally, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, we could learn from elements of previous London Olympiads, particularly the 1948 games—the austerity Olympics. We are living in a time of greater austerity and one hopes that some of those lessons for a cost-effective games can also be learned.

I have publicly expressed my concerns about some of the issues to do with the large number of people who will be transported from the hotels in Park lane in my constituency to the Olympic village and the fundamental impact that that will have on traffic during late July and August next year. One accepts that for Heads of State and leading individuals there are, of course, security implications and they will need to be ferried in such a way, but it seems that many thousands of people will be getting this sort of treatment—a whole lot of hangers-on in the IOC and the sponsors. I would like to see the Minister playing a role in trying to pare down that number to the basic minimum that takes account of security implications.