Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Guy Opperman

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to make a few quick comments on holding a remote operating licence from the Gambling Commission. I will also comment on those based overseas who will be required to obtain a remote operating licence from the commission as a result of measures in the Bill.

I bring that to the Minister’s attention because of the changes that will be introduced off the back of the Bill. Currently, remote gambling operators in only 31 jurisdictions can advertise in the UK. As a consequence of the Bill, the scope for advertising will widen sixfold to 196 jurisdictions, as long as providers get the operating licence. Providers from, for example, China and Brazil cannot advertise in the UK, but under the Bill, they will be able to do so for the first time if they get a Gambling Commission licence under Lords amendment 1. I make that point because, between 2006 and 2012, advertising on TV increased by 600%. With the licence comes the advertising. Perhaps the Government will give the House an indication of how they intend, through the licensing grant, to ensure that advertising does not spiral out of control.

I thank the Minister and the Lords for making the changes. Two welcome and important commitments were made in the other place. I divided the House on the introduction of a one-stop shop self-exclusion mechanism and got support from Labour colleagues to make that happen. I am pleased that those changes are included in the Bill because they will strengthen player protection. Put simply, a customer need ask only once in their local betting shop and their exclusion will apply to all shops in that chain and to all chains in the UK. That, too, is good news. The concept of a one-stop shop is to help to deliver an important tool to assist problem gamblers to take back control over their lives, as it is often described. That is good news.

I am pleased to see the financial transaction blocking amendments, which are good news. I am also pleased to confirm that the Gambling Commission has reached agreement with major payment systems organisations, namely MasterCard, PayPal and Visa Europe, to work together to block financial transactions with unlicensed operators that seek to use payment systems for illegal purposes. That is good news for the Bill and for the good work put into the process by Members of the House, and those in the other place especially, who made that happen.

I want to ask the Minister two questions. On the voluntary approach to the fixed odds betting terminals, there is an indication that there will be regulations. Will she indicate whether it is the Government’s intention to put the situation right in the Consumer Rights Bill? If so, we are probably at the stage where those measures need to be included in it. Consumer protection is also important. Is it the Government’s intention to provide for the FOBT voluntary approach regulations in the Consumer Rights Bill?

Lastly, I want to ask the Minister about a technical point. I would welcome any clarification she can give on how, prior to legislation, the voluntary approach to financial transaction blocking will apply to Northern Ireland. I ask because, as I understand it, the Gambling Commission, which does not have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, will play the key mediating role. Will she indicate how that will work? Will it be done through the Northern Ireland Assembly and an amendment there, or will it be done through further UK Government changes?

I am very pleased that, at long last, the amended Bill seems to be going in the direction we want it go in. That is down to the hard work of Members in this Chamber and in the other place. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for his hard work. I thank the Minister, too.

[Guy Opperman]

I started out aged 14 as an apprentice stable lad. I worked my way up through a racing stable and then became a jockey at various stages of my life. I am lucky enough and privileged enough to have ridden upsides Tony McCoy, who famously asked me what my real job was. I am also very fortunate to be the Member of Parliament for Hexham, which is one of the finest racecourses in the country. It will strongly welcome the Bill as demonstrating support for smaller racecourses, as more money goes back into the racing community.

Any interpretation of the Bill will show that it is right that bookmakers now support the industry from which they benefit so much. I have met many bookmakers over the years as this matter has gone through the House. This is not an anti-bookmaker measure; it will produce a level playing field where bookmakers make a proper contribution to the racing community.

I welcome the announcements in the Budget. It is worth reminding the House that it is right that the LIBOR fines, paid for by those who demonstrated the worst of values, should now be supporting those who demonstrate the best of values. I support LIBOR fines going to St John Ambulance—I have certainly used its services in point-to-points and the like—and the VAT relief on fuel for air ambulances. We cannot have racecourses without those facilities. The Chancellor’s decision, ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), to extend the horseracing betting levy to offshore bookmakers and to consider wider levy reforms—something that has been a nirvana for so many people involved in racing—is fantastically good news. I will come on to the racing right to support the sport, which we need to address and expand on, in a moment.

In addressing the comments by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), it is important to understand that the Gambling Act 2005, introduced by the previous Government, effectively introduced the system that we have had to amend, control and change. The Act was far from helpful. As someone who was working in racing throughout the period of the previous Government, I can assure the House that they were deeply unsupportive of horseracing.

I welcome the introduction of the racing right, which is fantastic. After all, racing is key to tourism, local jobs and the rural package that several small towns offer. I have been lucky enough to ride at all the big tracks, such as Cheltenham and Kempton Park. I am not denigrating, in any way, those tracks—their fences are a bit bigger and stiffer, and when one falls one certainly falls quite hard—but it is the smaller tracks, the Towcesters, the Ludlows and, of course, the Hexhams that are the true lifeblood of racing. They are vital to its future. The Bill will introduce the support that we want.

It is important to understand and make the wider point that some have touched on, which is that without support for racing there will be no bloodstock sales, no breeding, no studs and no veterinary support. I, for one, broke several bones. Without racing, I would have put various orthopaedic surgeons in the NHS in fewer situations. All those people will benefit from an enhancement of racing.

We need more from the Minister on what constitutes the racing right. We accept and acknowledge that this is a good Bill and that we are heading in the right direction, and we accept and acknowledge that wider levy reform is for the benefit of one and all in racing, but we need to understand what exactly the racing right entails. That needs to be expanded on to a greater degree, because British racing is a wonderful institution and it needs all our support.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Debate between Jim Shannon and Guy Opperman

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s point. This process will definitely be watched with great interest by the United Nations when self-determination, which is surely what a referendum is all about, is being considered.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter before the House. The referendum was clear: the Falkland islanders want to stay British. Does he feel that that message should be sent out from this House this evening to the Argentines—that the Falklands are British today, they will be British in 20 years’ time and they will be British for ever, as long as the people there want them to be?

[Guy Opperman]

I entirely endorse that point.

It is also right to remember those who passed away during the conflict 31 years ago, when 255 British troops died, 650 Argentinean troops passed away and three female islanders were also killed.

Falkland Islands

Debate between Jim Shannon and Guy Opperman

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

All of us would like to see the individual countries getting on to a greater degree, and one of my themes in the debate is to make it crystal clear that we regard Argentina, fundamentally, as a potential friend. It would be good if trade relations were better, fishing were better harmonised or hydrocarbons work was done together. At present, however, the Argentine stance is blocking that route. If the Argentine President is claiming a “hearts and minds” approach, I am sad to say that her argument is deeply flawed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We have said that there is a need to increase and improve trade relations, but what about the 13,000 people who were murdered and disappeared in Argentina between 1976 and 1983, under the regime that fought the Falklands war? Is it not time for a human rights inquiry into that? Let us look at the bad things as well as the good things.

[Guy Opperman]

With no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, I will not go down that route. One of the few good things to emerge from the Falklands war was the return of democracy to Argentina in 1983. It is entirely right that there have been various analyses of the history of Argentina but, with respect, it is not for me to lecture the Argentines on that history and on what they were involved with. Instead of looking to the past, I hope that we can look to a future of co-operation between these two countries, which already have plenty of trade and many common grounds. The Foreign Secretary, 10 days ago, wrote:

“There are many areas on which we can cooperate—on joint management of fish stocks, on hydrocarbon exploration, and on strengthening air and sea links between the Falklands and South America, as we used to do in the 1990s and ought to be able to be able to so again.”

Bowel Cancer Screening

Debate between Jim Shannon and Guy Opperman

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

I do indeed. I welcome the fact that the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have changed to allow screening to become considerably more frequent in such cases. I am sure that the Minister will comment on that.

Flexi-scope screening will undoubtedly save thousands of lives. FOB screening saved 700 to 1,000 lives a year, and flexi-scope screening will save about 3,000 lives a year. To confirm that, the Government implemented a pathfinder project in three areas. Unsurprisingly, two of those areas were in the north-east, this country’s leading medical region. The three areas were South of Tyne and Wear and Tees, along with Derby. The pathfinder findings are with the Department of Health and have not yet been published, but I can assure the House that, in broad terms, they accord with Professor Atkin’s findings. Last October, the Prime Minister announced a proposal to pilot the scheme nationally in 2012, but there are clinical and funding issues that need to be addressed.

First, when is the Department of Health going to invite bids for the follow-on pilot process, given that that was supposed to be done in 2011 and it is now 23 November?

Secondly, clinicians raise the specific concern that the flexi-scope system is only manageable if we have a sufficiency of trained nurse endoscopists, so where are we in respect of this crucial training? Even with the most amazing piece of equipment, if we do not have the people to operate and interpret it, it is useless. Under this scheme, several hundreds of thousands of endoscopies will have to be carried out, with colonoscopies to follow in about 10% of cases. Therefore, everything will depend on training.

Thirdly, how does the Department of Health plan to assess its age groups? My understanding is that the current group of 60 to 74-year-olds will have FOB testing, and those aged 55 will have a flexi-scope. That is relatively clear, but what will happen for gentlemen and ladies in the 56-to-60 age group is not at all clear. Will they be offered the flexi-scope as well, or is that to be based solely on GP referral? Trusts need guidance on what they are to do with such a large and unknown number of people, as they need to plan budgets, staffing and much more besides.

Fourthly, we need to assess what we are going to do with those who have a flexi-scope at 55 and receive the all-clear and then reach the age of 60. Will we rescreen? Anyone who has ever worked in the health industry will know that there is “health speak”, and in this case the following question would be asked: “What is the parallel screening modality for the future?” As always, “health speak” is gibberish, but the simple question here is: are we going to rescreen people who are fine at 55?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have also gone through the screening process because of a family history of cancer. My GP and consultant at that time said the screening would have to be done again in a year’s time and then again a year later, in order to be absolutely sure. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether there should be checks not just every now and again, but on a periodic basis?

[Guy Opperman]

It is ultimately up to the clinician—which it should be, frankly. The Minister must say how this policy will be implemented, but it should always be clinically driven.

Fifthly, trusts need confirmation that the pilot projects to be implemented next year will be funded from national funding.

I want to turn briefly to the financial case. The researchers behind the Atkin study suggest that the screening programme will reduce the costs associated with treating people with bowel cancer. Ministers will be aware of the Department of Health-commissioned report, as set out in the memorably named journal, Gut, in 2006, which suggested that if a screening programme based on this test was effective, it could save an average of £28 for every person screened. I urge the Minister to follow what a lot of doctors and others have recommended. We must understand why people do not take up the state’s offer to safeguard their health. If only 54% of those eligible are taking up this offer, that is a serious issue that needs to addressed.

When should we start screening? I speak as an MP whose constituency borders Scotland, and we are often told that in Scotland the health care system is much better, much more expansive and so much more free. In Scotland, FOB screening takes place at 60, not 50 as it does in this country and my understanding is that they do not intend to take up the flexi-scope screening. Personally, I am yet to be persuaded of the clinical or financial basis for screening at the age of 50 given the immense task of screening from the age of 55 onwards, with all the numbers of people who will go through the system. Although there might be pressure—obviously, the Opposition Benches are packed—to move towards such screening at 50, there is no clinical or financial basis in the current system to justify such an approach.

I want to address the possible role of private or other public organisations, suitably supervised, in this process of change. We need to explore the issue of those whom the state must look after but do not take up the offer of screening. It affects both their health and our finite budget. The state must and will always be the provider of medical services in the future—no one disputes that—but it must also enable change and encourage private or public organisations to help in health care. All acknowledge that the take-up of screening is tragically low, as 46% resist the chance to screen themselves for bowel cancer and more than 20% of women resist the chance to have cervical or breast cancer screening. Everybody must accept that there is a problem with that. How can we address that?

Only the short-sighted or extremely socialist would suggest that the state always has the answer to all those problems. What if public sector organisations were to go the extra mile and care for their employees in a different way? We should bear it in mind that the state spends a fortune training its employees to carry out their designated tasks, whether they are consultants, surgeons, endoscopists or nurses. It surely makes sense to safeguard one’s assets—that is, one’s employees. Why not use the public sector as a lead by making it either mandatory or strongly advisable that all permanent core workers should have the screening that their health deserves and that we ask of the rest of the public? I would suggest that they should lead the way. That follows on from the point that is made about flu jabs and the prevention of winter problems in hospital.

We should also consider companies; I want to finish on a localism point. We always criticise employers in this House, but let us say that we had an enlightened employer. Why could they not be allowed or even encouraged to conduct screening of their workers, in whom they invest so much? There is clearly a benefit to the worker, the employer-employee relationship would improve as the employee was valued and cared for, and the state would not necessarily have to pay for the health care screening provided to its citizens. I am talking not just about bowel cancer screening, which is quite complex. Breast cancer screening, for example, is important but not necessarily that difficult.

The cost of such privately paid screening could then be borne in the form of a reclaimable tax break to the company, such as an equivalent cut in the cost of the company’s local business taxes. That would offer localism, increased health screening and better care for employees. Although there might be some data protection issues and concerns about who would pay for the follow-up care, it would unquestionably improve the take-up of screening. I refuse to accept that there is no mileage in my suggestion, which surely brings true localism and better screening to the workplace.

In the minute or so I have left, I want to address the fact that this is men’s health awareness month and individual members of the public must take responsibility for their own health. All around us, perfectly sane men are sporting moustaches as “Movember” kicks into gear. For too long, men have ignored their health. It is well known that they do not have regular check ups. The reality is—I am not surprised the House is not packed this evening—men do not like to talk about the prostate or their bowel. As one of the nurses I met in hospitals put it to me: “Men and their bits—they get so precious about them! If men had to go through what women have to go through with cervical cancer screening and pregnancy they would be a great deal more healthy and self aware.”

I praise the television celebrity Chris Evans for his campaign to show that there is no shame and in fact great benefit in having bowel cancer screening. The shame in such matters exists when people ignore the signs and even die through false manliness or ignorance.