Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between John Penrose and Philip Davies

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I had thought, and hoped, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley was speaking for more Labour Members and that we would be able to achieve a degree of cross-party consensus. It would be helpful to have country-wide unanimity on this issue, so I am sad that there does not seem to be such unanimity on the Opposition Benches. The Attorney General, who is sitting next to me, is convinced that the Government’s case is strongly arguable, and that is why we are taking this case to court.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We are in the strange situation that last week the result of the referendum was so catastrophic for Labour that its Members passed a motion of no confidence in their leader, but today that result is neither here nor there, as we can just proceed and keep ourselves in the EU because of parliamentary democracy. Perhaps Labour Members will make their minds up soon. Does not what we have heard today emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—[Interruption.]

[Philip Davies]

Does not what we have heard today show that what my right hon. Friend said was true and that the purpose of these devices is not to help the Government to implement the will of the public, but to ask for the right to try to prevent it from being implemented? If the Government do not implement it because Labour frustrates the process, Labour will be wiped out in the north of England in a future general election. Labour Members might be hellbent on self-destruction, but may I ask the Minister to save the Labour party and implement Brexit in full?

[John Penrose]

There are many reasons to implement Brexit in full, but that is the first time anyone has urged me to do it to save the Labour party. I am particularly delighted to hear that coming from my hon. Friend. I agree that there will be a nagging concern in some people’s minds—unworthy though it might be—that some of these proposals to delay the decision or subject it to intricate parliamentary procedures might be aimed at frustrating the democratically expressed will of the people, which of course would be democratically entirely wrong.

EU Referendum: Timing

Debate between John Penrose and Philip Davies

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I am coming to that, but I think it would be, at the very least, disrespectful to the principle behind the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which requires the date of the referendum to be set through a debate in the House on a statutory instrument, under the affirmative resolution procedure, in due course. When that point comes, there will be plenty of opportunities to debate the issue. I think that it would be premature to start ruling too many dates in or out, although I will be specifying the dates that we have already ruled out.

[Philip Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John Penrose]

I will, but then I really must make some progress.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I realise that we are not talking about a specific date proposed by the Government, but about the principle of opting for certain dates. Will my hon. Friend comment on the appropriateness of holding the referendum on the same date as a European Council meeting?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Penrose and Philip Davies

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

How many jobs does the Minister expect to be created or lost in the gambling industry as a result of the changes in the Budget, how many online betting businesses that are currently offshore will come back onshore, and how many jobs will come back with them?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

I am delighted to have a chance to answer at least one question. Unfortunately, the answer is that I do not know, because this is an issue for the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Penrose and Philip Davies

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I completely share my right hon. Friend’s concern about gambling addiction. Although it affects only a small number of people, it can ruin lives and is a very serious issue. Many colleagues on both sides of the House have raised it, as did Mary Portas in her recent review of the health of high streets throughout the country. However, my right hon. Friend will agree that we have to ensure that any policy or regulatory changes that might be considered are based not just on concern and anecdote, but on firm evidence and factual foundation. Therefore, my invitation to him and any other colleagues concerned about this issue—on either side of the House—is that if they can bring me hard evidence and facts, I will of course consider them extremely carefully.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Despite what the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) says, does my hon. Friend the Minister not accept that the percentage of problem gamblers using FOBTs declined from 11.2% in 2007 to 8.8% last year, and that the availability of gambling on the internet drives a coach and horses through the ridiculous limits we now have on the use of betting shop terminals? Given that people can use only one at a time—or perhaps two at best if they are particularly proficient—whether there are four, six or eight in a betting shop makes absolutely no difference at all to an individual’s problem gambling.

[John Penrose]

I accept that the causal link between FOBTs and problem gambling is poorly understood, which is why I asked for better evidence and facts to back up any suggested changes in regulation. I also agree with my hon. Friend that remote gambling is changing how people gamble. We need to make sure that such gambling is properly controlled and regulated, which is why we propose to introduce new regulations on it in due course.

Problem Gambling

Debate between John Penrose and Philip Davies

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Penrose]

I completely accept what I think is the right hon. Gentleman’s underlying point: that one figure—it was just into the area of statistical significance, although it was right at the borderline—in the recent gambling prevalence survey shows that there has been an increase in the number of problem gamblers. That figure has partly been driven by the fact that more people are gambling, many of whom create no problem at all. However, the fact that the total number of gamblers has increased and that a proportion of those are problem gamblers means that there has been a statistically significant increase. He is absolutely right to point that out. I hope that I struck the right balance in my earlier remarks about the need to put that into context. We are not doing too badly internationally and, relatively speaking, other countries have higher proportions of people who are problem gamblers, but I am sure he agrees that that is absolutely no cause for either complacency or relaxation. We need to ensure that we remain alive to the matter, so I am glad that he made that intervention.

To return to the earlier comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, I am delighted that he accepts the principle that it is right for companies involved in this kind of industry to contribute and to remain responsible. To be fair, almost without exception, the vast majority of people I have met in the gambling and gaming industries are keen to ensure that they recognise and live up to that duty. They are delighted to let it be known that they want to do that. There is an acceptance in the industry, and I think in society as a whole, that that is appropriate for companies involved in the industry. There may be an argument about the level of collaboration and involvement, which is entirely appropriate, but there is a broad cross-party consensus.

I accept my hon. Friend’s point, however, that it is not only up to the industry. Clearly, Government and public health have a role. Organisations are starting to move into and participate in this area—the NHS has been participating for some time. It is interesting to note that—if I can call it this—the medicalisation of problem gambling is far less advanced than the medicalisation of other kinds of addiction. The treatment provided in the NHS for other kinds of addiction—for example, substance abuse—has been longer established than that provided for gambling addiction. There are moves in the NHS to do more, but he is right to say that there has to be a partnership between the industry and publicly-funded bodies to address the issue.

My hon. Friend has discussed the current arrangements. He is right to say that they have been in place for not quite two years. They stem from a report in 2008 and were implemented in 2009. I must confess that when I began my current role as Minister with responsibility for this issue, just under a year into the new arrangements, I looked at the history. It is true to say that there was a series of different attempts before the current arrangements were set up. I think that this is either the second or the third set of institutional architecture that has been imposed in this area. While there were people who made the precisely the same points as my hon. Friend on the concerns about the bureaucracy and cost in the current structure, a third or fourth reorganisation would have been something that both the industry, and to be fair problem gamblers, probably needed like a hole in the head at that point. He is, however, right to make the fundamental point. It is always correct for everybody to want to get the maximum possible value for money from any funds put towards treating an addiction problem, such as problem gambling. It is therefore sensible for us to look periodically at whether we are getting the best possible value for money.

The small caveat that I add to my hon. Friend’s remarks is that, yes, the Government need to be comfortable with this, but we also need to bear in mind that the organisations that he talked about are overwhelmingly—exclusively, in this case—funded by the industry itself. This is industry money, not public money. We are not talking about a public bureaucracy, or an executive agency of either my Department, the Department of Health or any other branch of Government. Those organisations are, rightly in my view, funded and organised by the industry, and they include people who are involved in treating and dealing with gambling addiction. They share a very heavy proportion of the burden of trying to ensure that the maximum possible value for money is achieved.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that the new arrangements have been in place for nearly two years, so there is beginning to be enough of a track record to evaluate whether they are effective. In the course of the coming 12 months, that track record will be well bedded-in, and it will be sensible to start evaluating whether the value for money that everyone wants to see is being achieved. He is enunciating a very sensible principle. The plea that I would make, and the principle that I want us to establish, is that while Government clearly have an interest, we would expect the charities concerned and the industry to take a leading role as well.

[Philip Davies]

I welcome the comments that the Minister has made so far, and I agree with what he has just said. The industry needs to play a leading role. Will he accept, therefore, that it would be far better if the gambling industry, which funds all this, had much more of a say in how the money is spent to ensure that it is spent effectively? The industry pays the money, but it often has very little say in how it is actually spent.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I think goes back to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley: are there any examples of public policy research, funded by the Responsible Gambling Fund, that have made an impact on any of my decisions, or those of my predecessors?

One issue that I have raised with the RGF is that I am concerned that there is no significant research into establishing the kind of causal links, which I think the right hon. Gentleman suspects that there may be, between particular kinds of gambling and problem gambling. For example, many people believe that fixed-odds betting terminals are more likely to contribute to problem gambling than other kinds of gambling. The difficulty for someone in my position is that, while that is a widespread suspicion, there is no academically solid underpinning as yet to justify it. From my point of view, therefore, it is extremely difficult for any Gambling Minister to take effective decisions about whether particular kinds of gambling should be expanded or reduced, because there is not an adequate evidential basis on which to build a proper business case, or a proper political consensus. Into that vacuum rushes everybody with their favourite prejudice. Everybody has an answer about the reasons why we have this amount of problem gambling here and that amount of problem gambling there, but nobody has enough facts to form a solid evidential basis on which to build a reason for changing the law. I have therefore asked the various bodies to prioritise research that will provide that kind of evidential basis, and they have agreed to do so. Clearly, they must then decide what that will be—it needs to be at arm’s length from Government to be credible. In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, it is vital that we have that kind of evidential basis for the benefit of sensible and objective fact-based public policy making in future.

[Philip Davies]

Will the Minister also bear in mind the common-sense point that the number of machines in a particular shop cannot hinder problem gambling on the basis that somebody can only play on one at a time? That is like saying that if a pub has four different beers, and decides to extend that to 10, there will be an increase in alcoholism. That would clearly be nonsense, and I hope that the Minister will not let common sense fly out of the window when he looks at the research.

[John Penrose]

I am always happy to apply common sense. The particular example that my hon. Friend has chosen is perhaps unfortunate, because with the advent of the switch from £2 stakes to £1 stakes, there have been examples of people playing two machines at once, because they like playing with £2 stakes. I take his general point, however.

My hon. Friend has said, rightly, that he wants the industry to step up to the plate and take a lead in trying to sort out issues around problem gambling that cause concern. I share his view, and it is essential that both the industry and the other stakeholders do precisely that. The Government will certainly support any of their efforts to bring this issue under control.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Penrose and Philip Davies

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

1. What progress he has made in resolving the dispute between race course owners and race course bookmakers on pitch tenures.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

I am sure that the House will remember that in 2009 the previous Government brokered an agreement in principle between race course bookmakers and race courses. It is fair to say that progress since has been stately rather than swift, but I am pleased to report that so far 17 race courses, including Towcester and those owned by Northern Racing and Arena Leisure, have agreed terms of one kind or another.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister is right that some progress has been made, but there is very slow progress, if any at all, with some other race courses. He will be aware that the Select Committee report issued in the previous Parliament found very firmly in favour of race course bookmakers. I hope he will take steps to encourage race courses to give a fair settlement to race course bookmakers who felt that they were buying their pitches in perpetuity.

[John Penrose]

I am sure that most Members, and people in the racing family more widely, would agree with my hon. Friend. I think that everyone is collectively anxious that this matter should be resolved quickly. I am sure that as a good free marketeer, my hon. Friend will agree that it is better for both sides to agree this between themselves rather than have political interference to push it along. The official form of words is that all options remain open to me. I would say to those involved that they do not want politicians of any stripe turning up to try to do this for them, because the chances are that the result will be less good than one they have brokered for themselves.

Horse Racing Levy

Debate between John Penrose and Philip Davies

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

To begin, I echo a common thread throughout the debate by congratulating the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—I nearly called him the Member for Newmarket, but his constituency is of course broader than that. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on choosing what is clearly a well selected debate, given the breadth, depth and variety of the contributions. That shows what an important issue this is.

The motion calls for the Government to come forward with proposals by the end of the year. I am happy to accept that as the challenge and the target, and we will aim to meet it. I cannot make announcements right now, it being only January. The consultation that was kicked off by the last Government has been completed and there were a large number of submissions on the future of remote gambling and offshore gambling, which is a broader issue than the horse race betting levy, but is none the less important to the levy. We will respond to that consultation, and I am currently in the process of considering the responses.

A range of other interests have been laid out ably and well in this debate. I will not recap them all, partly due to lack of time. I want to ensure that I respond to some of the points that were made, rather than just repeat them. It is absolutely right for the House to urge the Government to come up with concrete proposals before the end of the year, and I am happy to accept that challenge, in line with the mood of the House.

I will have to tread a little carefully because, as I said, we are still considering the details of our proposals. I am happy to give as much detail as I can on the direction of thinking and the principles that underlie what has to be done, but beyond that, I shall rely on a quotation from Alan Greenspan, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve in America, who said in a speech to the Economic Club of New York in 1988, when asked about the future direction of interest rates, on which he was obviously not allowed to opine:

“I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I’ve said.”

I will be a little careful on that basis.

What I can say on the principles underlying this matter is that it is absolutely right, as everybody has agreed, that there is a strong symbiotic relationship between racing and bookmaking, and rightly so. It is clear that each of the two cannot exist without the other. Racing needs the income from bookmaking. Bookmaking is perhaps less dependent on horse racing than 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but it is still a tremendously important part of its income. We must recognise that.

It has also been pretty much universally agreed in today’s debate that the current levy system is old fashioned and, if not broken, in the process of breaking. It is a solution that to modern eyes and ears feels corporatist. It feels peculiar to have political intervention, lobbying and decision making on something that feels as though it ought to be a normal commercial relationship. As a number of hon. Members stated, the challenge is not whether we accept that premise—most hon. Members have accepted the basic premise—but in working out what a normal commercial relationship will look like and how we can get from where we are today to that point, and on a sustainable basis.

[Philip Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I am afraid that I have to be extremely quick and will not be able to take any more interventions due to the pressure of time, but my hon. Friend’s speech was very short so I shall give way to him.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful. May I suggest that that commercial arrangement is simply between bookmakers and racecourses? Often, the problem is that too many people are pitching in, when in fact all the bookmakers want to do is buy a product from the promoter of the racing product, so to speak, which is the racecourses. Surely it should be up to the racecourses to put up prize money levels to attract owners in the first place. The commercial arrangement should be a simple one.

[John Penrose]

That illustrates one of the difficulties in designing a sustainable system for the future. My hon. Friend is quite right that that is one potential solution, but I think many people would have grave problems with it. I hope that Members will wish me luck in coming up with a solution that pleases everybody, or at least does not displease too many people. Many people in the Horsemen’s Group and other parts of racing would be extremely worried by my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but I take his perfectly legitimate point.

A flier has been going around from William Hill, and I believe the substance of it also largely appeared in an advertisement in the Racing Post last week. It states:

“What is the answer, then? Simple. Replace the levy with a normal commercial negotiation.”

Amen to that, and many people would say the same thing. The difficulty is, what exactly does a normal commercial negotiation look like given that at the moment, we do not have a willing buyer and a willing seller? Racing has nothing to sell—it does not have the type of property rights that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked about. I am not sure whether William Hill is proposing a property right, but if it is, I suspect that many people in other parts of the bookmaking and gambling industry will be concerned about that. That is another problem that we face. There is no obvious compromise, and if we are to get one, there will have to be a great deal of good will on both sides and a willingness to discuss the matter.

We have already taken our initial steps. We intend to take powers in the Public Bodies Bill to remove the Secretary of State’s role in the levy determination process. That is a step in the right direction because it takes politicians and politics out of the individual levy determination, but it does not go nearly far enough towards revising the system fundamentally, and that is the point that we have to get to.

Whatever solution is proposed—as I said, I intend to take up the challenge of bringing solutions forward for discussion during the course of the year—it has to produce a level playing field in a number of ways. First, there has to be a level playing field between betting exchanges and bookies, which are two fundamentally different business models. It is clearly no responsibility of any Government to start dictating which business models they prefer within a particular industry, so we should not play favourites between betting exchanges and traditional bookmakers. However, we should ensure that there is a level playing field in the contribution to racing of those two business models, and then one or the other will presumably win out in due course by the normal rules of free commercial competition.

Equally, it is essential that we have a level playing field between British horse racing, other sports and events that are bet on—given the innovation in the industry, it seems that we will be able to put a bet on many more things in future—and foreign racing. It would clearly not be in the interests of British racing if a significant, or even modest, contribution was inherent in the cost of placing a bet, but was not applied to other events on which people could place a bet in a bookmaker’s. We have to understand whether we can either whittle that differential down or get as close to a level playing field as we can, so that we do not disadvantage British racing.

As a number of colleagues have said, we must also have a level playing field between people who place bets with domestic bookmakers and betting exchanges and those who do so remotely or overseas through operations based offshore, including through the internet. We are clearly a long way from that at the moment.

As I said earlier, when I consider the responses to the previous Government’s consultation, I will bear in mind the broader issue. Important though a level playing field is, there is also the question of consumer protection. At the moment, people who place bets in Britain, with domestically regulated exchanges or bookmakers or through any other type of gambling, are protected by the Gambling Commission. If someone places a bet on equivalent games that are regulated offshore, their protection may be severely lower or in some cases zero. That clearly has implications such as the potential for problem gambling.

I have heard what Members have said and am happy to pick up the challenge. As I said, I hope Members will wish me luck. They will have heard from the debate that the different positions are quite wide apart at the moment, and in some cases deeply entrenched. That is a major problem that we have to solve, and I look forward to bringing forward our proposals as requested in the motion.