Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of local radio to listeners across the UK, and I know that he is an effective campaigner for his local area. The BBC and commercial radio are responsible for the operation of their respective radio networks, including the DAB radio networks, but I have asked my officials to engage with local DAB multiplex operators and broadcasters to look at whether there is a desire to increase local DAB coverage further.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

T2. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in the media world, content is king, and that that is why we must support our world-leading creative talent? Will she take steps to require artificial intelligence developers to provide songwriters and composers with detailed information as to how their works are being used, including when authorisation has been granted for use of those works as training data?

[Lucy Frazer]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right about the importance of protecting the original work of the creative industries. I have held a number of roundtables to ensure that we protect that originality. The Intellectual Property Office is working on that very issue, and I have been liaising with it and with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

6. If the Commission will take steps to increase purchases of Australian wine for sale in the House of Commons.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne)]

The wine sold in the House of Commons is reviewed annually, with the next review due in the spring of 2024. The right hon. Gentleman’s question specifically relates to Australian wine; I understand that a Chardonnay and a Shiraz are available, compared with three English wines, so Australian wine is represented on the wine list in the Palace of Westminster.

[John Spellar]

As part of a dispute over covid, China imposed particularly punishing tariffs on Australian wine, damaging that industry. May I urge the House of Commons Commission to stand with our Australian friends and allies, and prioritise buying Australian wine and encouraging its use in our venues to make it clear that bullying does not pay?

[Sir Charles Walker]

Of course, if colleagues here wish to prioritise the purchase of Australian wine from the wine list, I encourage them to do so, but I also remind them that we have very good English wines on the wine list as well. More generally, I am sure the nation has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s call to arms, so when we are out in the supermarkets stocking our own shelves, perhaps we should all be mindful of buying two or three bottles of Australian wine as well—seriously—to show solidarity with our Australian friends and their growers.

Proposed Merger of Three UK and Vodafone

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposed merger of Three UK and Vodafone.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George, and I am grateful for having been granted the debate. I refer the House to my entry to the Register of Members’ Interests. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) to his new role as shadow Minister.

In July, it was announced that Vodafone and Three UK had agreed to combine their businesses, in an effort, they claim, to create one of Europe’s leading 5G networks. Although I welcome the aspiration, such a deal will have terrible consequences, with higher prices for consumers, job losses alongside inflated corporate profits, and a threat to the UK’s national security. The newly combined company would have 27 million customers, which would make it the largest mobile network operator in the UK, surpassing O2 and EE. That makes today’s debate important, as both carriers already have customers in every one of the 650 seats represented here in the House of Commons.

The announcement of the merger came only months after Vodafone had already announced 11,000 job cuts worldwide, including here in the UK. When Vodafone UK’s chief executive was subsequently asked what impact the merger would have on future job losses, he stubbornly said,

“it’s very early…to talk about job losses”

and that “some roles” might be impacted. External studies suggest that “some” could be as many as 1,600 roles. When Vodafone and Three merged with TPG in Australia in 2020, they claimed that it would accelerate the benefits of substantial network investments made by both companies, when in reality investment levels across the sector are down by 45%.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Is this not part of what we are seeing across the IT sector, which is what we previously saw in other industrial sectors, for example, in companies such as John Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company? Basically, these companies drive out competition and then set their own terms and the terms of those who work in the industry. Is this not of real concern not just to consumers, but to all those concerned with the creation of those monopolies?

[Navendu Mishra]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. This merger is bad news not just for UK customers, but for the people who work for both these businesses and, of course, it poses threats to national security as well.

Investment levels in the sector after the merger of Vodafone and Three in Australia went down by 45%. I ask the Minister: does the evidence therefore suggests that this will be a sensible merger here in the UK?

I want to place on the record my thanks to my union, Unite, for campaigning on this issue. It shares the concerns that so many of us have about jobs and national security, and it has consistently kept members aware of the implications since the merger was announced. According to Ofcom, 2.2 million households are struggling with the cost of mobile services. As a report by the House of Commons Library stated:

“Bills for some customers rose by over 11% in 2022. Communications consultancy Farrpoint has estimated that, based on inflation projections, bills will rise by a third over the next five years.”

Will the merger make bills cheaper for British customers? Research suggests not. The former chief competition economist at the European Commission has undertaken work showing that prices after a Three-Vodafone merger could be 50% higher. Based on average spending patterns, that means UK customers would pay up to £300 more per year on their mobile bills.

Only a few months ago, we heard that water companies were pushing for bills to rise by up to 40%. We know that electricity and gas payments almost doubled between May 2020 and June 2023, and the Bank of England chief economist recently warned that food inflation is unlikely to come down soon. Why will British customers who use Vodafone and Three have to find even more money for an unnecessary choice that has been foisted on them?

The merger is bad news not only for households’ financial security, but for the UK’s national security.

[Navendu Mishra]

The right hon. Gentleman makes important points, and national security is vital. I pay tribute to him for his work on this issue, and to all the members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China in the House of Commons and the House of Lords who are active in that campaign group.

[John Spellar]

When there was the issue about Huawei installing its equipment, one of the arguments made was that this was the hardware, and that the telephone companies and indeed the National Security Agency would be able to keep track of the software, but these companies are now deeply involved in the software. Does that not make these systems even more vulnerable to possible influence by the Chinese authorities?

[Navendu Mishra]

That is an important intervention. I accept the point that the hardware and the software are both quite open to interference, and I hope the Minister will be able to address these concerns from Members.

Following a merger, Three’s ultimate parent company, CK Group, will gain significant control over a business that will serve 40% of the UK’s population. Evidence suggests that there is extensive collaboration between the CK Group, the Li family that controls it and the Chinese state. It is well documented that the Li family has strongly backed pro-Beijing hardliner John Lee as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, and supported a draconian new security law that would suppress dissent. On top of this, top CK Group executives sit on Chinese Government committees and have access to the inner circle of the Chinese elite. Does the Minister feel comfortable with a hostile foreign actor potentially having access to millions of UK citizens’ data?

Last month, I wrote to Greater Manchester police, my local force, sharing my concerns about the impact that such a merger would have, and Greater Manchester police is just one of the many police forces that have contracts with Vodafone at present. I am aware that Unite the union is happy to provide a list of police forces that have contracts with Vodafone, so I urge Members across the House to contact their local force to seek assurances about security and privacy measures. I implore the Minister to meet Unite to discuss these concerns as a matter of priority.

I have grave concerns that China’s domestic and counter-intelligence laws and Hong Kong’s national security law may pave the way for China’s security services to obtain confidential data from companies such as CK Hutchison. While in theory UK law prohibits the collection or transfer of individual user data, in practice there have been numerous examples in the UK and elsewhere where data has been accessed and transferred to China. Can the Minister give his assurances that he will do all in his power to prevent this from happening?

Although Ministers may assure us that they will do all in their power, I remain worried that that is not enough to stop sensitive UK Government communications being exposed. It goes beyond the police, as Vodafone has contracts with the Ministry of Justice and the national health service, too. The recent report by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament found that the UK is of “significant interest” to China

“when it comes to espionage and interference”,

and notes that China uses

“all possible legitimate routes to acquire UK technology, Intellectual Property and data”,

but that such overt

“acquisition routes have been welcomed by HMG for economic reasons”.

Now would be a good time for the Government to acquit themselves of that allegation, and to put British consumers and our national security first.

In the past, the Prime Minister met the Intelligence and Security Committee yearly. I hope the Minister will give the House his assurance that the Prime Minister will reinstate those meetings. Now, faced with this significant merger and a litany of other national security threats, would be a good time to do so.

Unite the union has commissioned analysis from digital security expert Dr Alexi Drew, an academic and the director of tech security at consultancy Penumbra Analysis. Dr Drew found that the potential merger created substantial security risks, noting:

“Domestic laws and internal company policies will do little to hinder the exercise of nation-state intelligence gathering apparatus from leveraging any means of access to data that company mergers and acquisitions might enable. If a merger creates the technical or human means to collect valuable data, then the security services of any nation-state, Chinese or otherwise, are likely to make use of it.”

The Government have said that they will assess this risky merger through their investment security unit, so what stage has the ISU assessment reached, and will the acquisition be called in for a further national security assessment? Knowing what we know about the proposals, they seem wrong on so many levels. They are bad news for British customers, will result in significant job losses, and plainly pose a national security threat to the UK. Perhaps things would be very different if the Government actually had an industrial strategy for the UK and were not asleep at the wheel while our national infrastructure got sold off to hostile actors.

In the light of all this, I will be interested to hear the Minister’s contribution and whether he supports the merger. If he supports it, why? If he does not, what will he do to stop the merger?

Gambling Act Review White Paper

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I know that society lotteries bring in valuable revenues that are enjoyed by communities. One of the changes that we are making relates to raising the age to ensure that we protect young people, but I am always happy to continue looking at the work that such lotteries are doing.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister read out almost a race card of her predecessors, so let me congratulate her on the short time in which she has managed to get out this White Paper to enable much better public debate. Is there not a danger that any regime will be vulnerable to offshore, out-of-jurisdiction operators, who flout the regulations and undermine legitimate companies? Will she mobilise a whole-of-Government approach—including the crime agencies, the Treasury and the banks—to tackle the gambling black market and ensure the success of her reforms while protecting a major British industry and its workers?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights for performers and creative workers.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

14. What assessment the Government has made of the potential impact on the creative industries of the proposed copyright exemption for text and data mining for artificial intelligence.

[The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)]

The recent Intellectual Property Office consultation on artificial intelligence and intellectual property sought evidence and views on text and data mining. A response was published in June. We recognise that the creative industries have significant concerns about the potential impacts of the TDM proposal and as a result, we are reflecting on whether to progress it in its current form. The IPO will be engaging with interested parties over the coming months to help to inform the Government’s thinking and we will set out the next steps in due course.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue and speaking on behalf of the creative industries; IP is the lifeblood of many of those industries. As I said in the Lords Committee, I am not convinced of the value of the proposal. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), and I met the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who has responsibility for the Intellectual Property Office. As I mentioned, he is extending the consultation on this and we will be talking to him in the meantime. We hope to provide further details as soon as we can.

[John Spellar]

The Minister clearly agrees that our creative industries, especially music, are not only valuable in themselves, but part of what makes Britain great. It follows that we must encourage and support our creative talent across the spectrum. She also clearly understands and shares the industries’ concern about eroding creative copyright for the benefit of the AI giants, so what will she do to stop it?

[Julia Lopez]

Hopefully, I have set that out in my previous answer. I raised the concerns of the creative industries with the responsible Minister and he was sympathetic to those concerns. He will go back and look at the consultation again to examine in greater detail some of the concerns that have already come from the creative industries and see whether the proposal can be revised.

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for over 75s) Bill

John Spellar Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am grateful to all colleagues who enabled a little time at the end of today’s sitting to discuss what continues to be a topical issue. People will have heard a report today that some 8 million people in our country are struggling with their bills. My view is that one bill that they should not be struggling with is the bill for the TV licence fee, which I would like to be abolished. Before we can get to that stage—the licence fee is guaranteed under the BBC charter until the end of 2027—we can try our best to mitigate its impact. This Bill is part of my ongoing campaign to try to persuade my Government to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee. On the basis that it is better to try to deal with such issues in bite-size proportions, I have started with the group of people aged over 75 who always thought that when they reached that esteemed age, they would not have to pay the licence fee.

Because of some double-dealing on the part of the BBC when it was negotiating with the Government, we ended up in a situation where, contrary to people’s expectations and, apparently, to the Government’s wishes, the BBC insisted on keeping the BBC licence fee for all those aged over 75 who were not in receipt of benefits. We therefore have a situation where that group of people are vulnerable to being prosecuted for TV licence fee non-payment. I will tell hon. Members what is said by some of the experts in this area.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has made clear his salami-slicing tactic and his attack on the BBC, which has been ongoing for some years. Did he notice in the meantime the BBC’s massive audiences during the events following the sad demise of Her late Majesty and the funeral? In the UK and around the world, people saw the immense quality of the BBC, which is a great British institution. Is this yet another example of the wrecking ball tactic used by some Conservative Members against the fundamental things that make this country great?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, that is not my motivation at all. The coverage of Her late Majesty’s funeral was brilliantly carried out by all the broadcasting media, including the BBC. I have nothing but praise for the way in which the BBC dealt with that.

To take a topical example of why a number of people feel that the BBC is not being true to its charter, today we heard the sad news that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) has been put in a situation where he has been suspended from the House for many weeks and, I understand, has chosen to resign and cause a by-election. Has that been prominently featured on the BBC news channels? I fear not. That is a topical example of the way in which some people feel that the BBC is rather selective in the way it deals with its news. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), when he was at the Conservative party conference and in the days following, found himself on the receiving end of some public criticism, which was featured prominently on the BBC airwaves. The contrast between those two cases is an example of people’s concerns.

[John Spellar]

I did notice the rather significant difference that one was a Government Minister and one was a Back Bencher.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

They were both Members of Parliament. One of them has been suspended from sitting in this House for a recommended 10 weeks, I think, and one of them has not been suspended—there was no charge against my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West at all. In a sense, the right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me.

To return to what TV licensing prosecutions do, Tara Casey of the legal charity APPEAL says:

“TV Licensing prosecutions are the perfect example of the criminalisation of poverty. This has got to be wrong, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis.”

How many people are being prosecuted for TV licence fee non-payment? The latest figures that I have are that 49,144 people were prosecuted last year, 92% of whom were convicted. These prosecutions were dealt with in the courts, thereby creating public expense through the court hearings and a great deal of distress for the people—92%—who were convicted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am so sorry. In that case, the hon. Gentleman is even more welcome to his position. It is hard to keep up with some of the changes that are taking place on the Front Bench at the moment.

This issue needs to be addressed, and it is good to know that the Government are still considering it, but another year has passed and there is not much indication—not much that I have received, anyway—that the “active consideration” of the issue of decriminalisation is reaching any conclusion. In the meantime, as I have said, people are being prosecuted up and down the country, and people aged over 75 who thought they were going to have a free television licence are particularly vulnerable to such activity.

This is an important issue. Apparently a mid-term review of the BBC charter is taking place this year. We are told that the licence fee will remain at £159 until the beginning of April 2024. That means that if there were to be a general election after that, in 2024, people would be asking, “Why has the BBC licence fee just increased?” I am not sure it is very good timing, but that is the plan. The BBC is expected to receive £3.7 billion in licence fee funding this year. Why are people not more exercised about this? It is a television tax, and it is more than twice the cost of reducing the top rate of tax from 45p in the pound, about which there was a big argument at the Conservative party conference.

Putting it all in context, and as a party in favour of supporting hard-working families, I would have thought we would be taking action to commit ourselves to doing away with the television tax and, in the meantime, doing away with the criminalisation of those who do not pay the television tax.

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under a Labour Government, the over-75s got their television licence for free? George Osborne took that away, and it is the only reason why the over-75s are having to pay.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The right hon. Gentleman and I agree on a lot of things. I am not sure I would put it exactly like that, but the substance of what he says is correct. We used to have free television licences for the over-75s, and then, with a bit of smoke and mirrors, we suddenly found the system no longer applied. It was done under a Conservative Government, and he refers to George Osborne, who I am sure is prepared to take responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the final part of his comments and for drawing attention to the fact that we constantly review the lottery. We have made significant changes over time, such as to the age limit for who can play it. As he is aware, people can use a credit card if the ticket is bought with other shopping. That is the norm in many other countries, but we constantly review those exact areas.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

5. What recent estimate she has made of the economic contribution that (a) the betting and gaming industry and (b) racing make to the economy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

In 2019, the last full year of gambling data unaffected by covid, the gambling industry contributed £8.3 billion to the economy, or 0.4% of gross value added. The sector employs approximately 98,000 people and pays £2 billion a year in gambling duties. According to the British Horseracing Authority, racing has direct revenues in excess of £1.47 billion and makes a total annual contribution to the UK economy of over £4 billion.

[John Spellar]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Can I urge him, in preparing the White Paper, to take a balanced view of the economic and social benefits, the considerable pleasure for millions who bet quite responsibly and the great contribution to the Exchequer, and balance that against the very vocal lobbying, particularly in some of the media, by those who basically, with gambling, are prohibitionists?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Again, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the gambling White Paper was comprehensive, and the response will be comprehensive. We have taken evidence and information from across the entire sector, so views such as those he has represented we are absolutely taking into account during the consideration.

Statutory Gambling Levy

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered proposals for a statutory gambling levy.

Today, we will consider the introduction of a statutory gambling levy to replace the inadequate voluntary model, and it is a pleasure to do so under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that at the back of the room we have bereaved families of people who gave their lives up to gambling addiction. I thought it only fair to highlight that at the start.

As we all know, the gambling review was launched over 18 months ago, and most of us thought that by now we would be discussing the detail of the White Paper in the Chamber, but unfortunately, that is not the case. I am hoping that good things come to those who wait. With just a couple of weeks to go until the highly anticipated publication of the long overdue Government reform of our gambling legislation, I am pleased by the shift in direction towards reform that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has signalled. Press reports over the past few weeks of the Government’s plan to introduce limits to online stakes and to pioneer an affordability system to prevent people from gambling beyond their means are welcome indeed.

Stake limits online should be comparable to those for land-based venues, and to be effective, any system of affordability must be run independently of the industry and have a single customer view. This is not the time to take half measures, and only banning front-of-shirt sponsorship without tackling the dozens of other ways in which gambling firms advertise would represent a missed opportunity. That would not address the harm that advertising can lead to, nor would it reduce children’s exposure to advertising as they watch sport on their screens.

Given that the previous gambling legislation review took place well over 15 years ago, the White Paper needs to make meaningful, robust and significant proposals. However, we are here today to discuss a specific proposal that I believe is vital to the success of the gambling review and which must be at the centre of the Government’s plan: a statutory levy on gambling operators to provide long-term funding for research, education and, most importantly, treatment of gambling-related harm.

Gambling is leading to significant harm in this country, and more than 55,000 children aged between 11 and 16 are gambling addicts. The gambling industry spends more than £1.5 billion a year on advertising, and 60% of its profits come from the 5% who are already problem gamblers or at risk of becoming so. On average, one problem gambler commits suicide every single day, and we have families here today who have experienced such loss.

Funding for research, education and treatment with respect to gambling-related harm in the UK is facilitated through a system of voluntary contributions from gambling operators, which should be 0.1% of their gross gambling yield. That goes to GambleAware, and each year, at current levels, that equates to donations totalling around £10 million. From there, funding is allocated by GambleAware to a range of third-sector organisations, academic institutions and two NHS providers. That might sound like a sensible amount of money and a seemingly sensible system, but if we consider the scale of the cost of gambling harm and how poorly the voluntary levy is operated, it soon becomes clear why this is a woefully inadequate method of providing funding for research, education and treatment.

Because of the voluntary nature of the contributions, operators can vary the size of donation that they send to GambleAware, which means there is a lack of consistency in the amount donated each year. Operators even have discretion over how much they contribute, with some operators giving as little as a few pounds. Alongside that ridiculous situation, operators are able to decide when donations are made. As a result, there is a complete lack of stability in the voluntary funding model. Recipients cannot plan budgets effectively, or ensure that long-term research projects or education programmes are properly funded, when they have no idea whether there will be enough money to continue them.

To make things worse, operators are able to determine who their contribution goes to, meaning that the voluntary system allows the gambling industry to retain a sense of control over the funding. That damages the independence of the service providers, academic institutions and other third-party recipients of funding, as well as the effectiveness of the levy in reducing wider gambling harms in the UK.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Carolyn Harris]

I will make some progress, because I have a long speech and a lot of people want to speak.

Earlier this year, NHS clinicians announced that they would stop taking money from the gambling industry to treat people with addiction. While I agree with the sentiment, I worry that that will only hurt treatment services in the long run. We need to find a better long-term solution to allow the NHS to access funding that comes from the industry but is not controlled by it.

The all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm and Peers for Gambling Reform have recognised and commented on the limitations and failings of the current voluntary system. That view is shared elsewhere. Back in March, Lord Foster of Bath, chair of Peers for Gambling Reform, received a reply to a letter, from Andrew Rhodes, chief executive of the Gambling Commission. In his reply, Mr Rhodes stated that

“the current voluntary system does not provide long-term certainty of funding to support planning and commissioning, it does not impact on all operators fairly, and it is perceived as allowing gambling operators too much control over the availability and destination of funds.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris]

I am not giving way. Even GambleAware, the charity that receives voluntary donations, commented recently on the woefully inadequate nature of the voluntary levy. Its chief executive, Zoë Osmond, said in April that the industry has never reached its target of achieving 0.1% of GGY—gross gambling yield—from the voluntary industry levy. The vast majority of the industry continues to donate in support of research, education and treatment at extremely low levels.

[John Spellar]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. She referred to expenditure being tied to donors, but the industry puts billions into the Treasury through taxation, so should that not be properly done through the national health service? Also, will she say what she actually wants for the industry? Does she want to close down gambling, or does she acknowledge that millions of people enjoy gambling perfectly safely and that abuse is going down?

[Carolyn Harris]

If my right hon. Friend listened to the rest of my speech, he might hear some information about where that is not the case. As for me being anti-gambling, I am certainly not. I spent last Thursday night at Ffos Las racecourse having a thoroughly good time placing bets on horses.

Clearly, the voluntary levy is not fit for purpose. It lacks consistency, transparency and, crucially, accountability. So, what is the solution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a real delight to contribute to a debate under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her comprehensive and powerful statement of the case, to which it is difficult to add anything.

I simply want to draw on the experience of my constituents, Liz and Charles Ritchie. I am delighted that Liz has been able to join us this morning. Their son, Jack, was one of the more than 400 people estimated each year to take their life due to gambling addiction, but he was never diagnosed with a gambling disorder; he was told by health professionals that he had an addictive personality that he would have to learn to live with. During the inquest into his death, the coroner described gambling warnings, information and treatment as “woefully inadequate”. The coroner’s “Prevention of future deaths” report states:

“The treatment available and received by Jack was insufficient to cure his addiction—this in part was due to a lack of training for medical professionals around…diagnosis and treatment”.

Jack took his life in 2017, but unfortunately things have not changed enough since then. As I said to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), according to the latest data from GambleAware, National Gambling Treatment Service statistics show that 49% of users still have a risk level of 3+, indicating that they remain at risk when their treatment has finished. We need to acknowledge, as the gambling review does in a sense, that we need to do more and much better.

Despite the wholly unfortunate characterisation of those of us making this argument as an anti-gambling lobby, I thought the hon. Member for Blackpool South helped our argument considerably when he talked about the inadequacy of provision in the NHS. He is right; that is at the core of our argument. Treatment, public messaging and prevention of harm are not sufficient in the UK to combat the severe harm experienced by gamblers exposed to dangerous products.

The Advisory Board for Safer Gambling explained the problems with the current voluntary system: a lack of transparency, a lack of equity across operators, a record of insufficient funding, and unpredictable voluntary funding that creates barriers to distributing money where it can have the most impact, such as the NHS. We have begun to hear the arguments this morning. The Betting and Gaming Council often boasts about how its leading members volunteered to boost their joint funding of education and treatment services to £100 million during the 2019-23 period. That figure of £100 million—plucked from the air—over four years is not generous; it is a tiny proportion of the extraordinary profits those members make from other people’s difficulties. Most importantly, it does not come close to tackling the scale of the task we face.

As the hon. Member for Blackpool South pointed out, there are only five gambling treatment centres in the UK, with two further centres planned to be opened this year. That is against a background in which research published by Public Health England last September estimated that about 0.5% of the adult population—about a quarter of a million people—are likely to have some form of gambling addiction, with some 2.2 million either problem gamblers or at risk of addiction.

According to research by the University of Bristol—this is a figure that we really need to stop and think about—55,000 children under the age of 15 have a gambling addiction. Jack’s addiction started while he was at school. A statutory levy is vital to ensure we have the sufficient funds to meet the challenge presented by gambling as it operates now. The levy must be independently collected and channelled into the NHS, so that the industry does not have undue influence over its allocation; my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East made that point powerfully.

There is a recent proposal from the Social Market Foundation to administer the levy through an independent levy board, which would allocate resource and ensure that the NHS services required are sufficiently funded. Existing organisations funded by the industry have an obvious conflict of interest and cannot fulfil that function. We are beginning to move away from the individual responsibility model and attitude to gambling problems towards a public health approach. As we do that, we need to change the Gambling Commission’s third objective, so that it has a clear responsibility to minimise gambling harm by protecting the whole population.

[John Spellar]

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who argued that the black market is greatly overestimated? I caution that that is always the response of the bureaucrats who provide the figures. It was true on cigarette smuggling, red diesel fraud and self-employment fraud, as well as many other areas. There is always a tendency to underestimate what goes on in the sub-economy. Is there not a danger that this issue will also be underestimated, if we over-regulate?

[Paul Blomfield]

As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, from my experience of tackling the payday lending industry on a cross-party basis, the argument that it came up with to defend its own profits was, “Be afraid of illegal loan sharks, so do nothing about us and the misery that we are causing, because there is that threat out there.” We need to tackle both. That strategy needs to be developed and funded by a statutory levy.

Let me return to Jack’s case and the conclusions that were raised at his inquest by the coroner, who insisted that, despite small changes in regulation and treatment since Jack’s death, significantly more needs to be done by the state to protect people. Crucially, Jack did not know his addiction was not his fault. Liz and Charles think that if his addiction had been recognised as a health problem and treated more effectively—if he had been given the correct information and the doctors had been better informed—he could still be alive today, and so would many others.

Medical experts agree. Dr Matt Gaskell, who leads the NHS Northern Gambling Clinic, explained to the inquest that the treatment Jack received was insufficient, and he spoke about the impact gambling has on the brain, causing major changes as addiction develops quickly. He underlined that the whole public are at risk, not just a vulnerable few, and I know that that is also the view of the Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who has previously said that gambling harm could affect any of us.

Obviously, a new approach is needed—one that promotes harm prevention and information about risk, as well as treatment and provision for early diagnosis. We have the skills and knowledge in our NHS, but we need the investment to make those services available to all who might need them. The hon. Member for Blackpool South said the NHS should be doing much more, and he is right, but the big flaw in his argument is that that should not be at the cost of other NHS services. It should be based on the “polluter pays” principle: those who do the harm should cover the cost of addressing it.

On the intervention made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the levy should be set at the rate necessary to cover the costs of mitigating the harm and providing the treatment. If the problem gets worse, the levy may have to go higher; if it is reduced as a consequence of effective treatment, the levy may go lower. The levy should be responsive and based on the “polluter pays” principle. However, I am conscious of the time and of the fact that you are glaring at me, Mr Betts, so I will finish on that point. I hope that the Government recognise the power of these arguments.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas. I assure him that proper impact assessments will be done. We know that horse-racing is a vital sport for the people who work in the industry. It supports many jobs, it provides leisure activities for many people, and it is a significant source of national pride and prestige. Nothing in the Gambling Act review, I hope, will do anything to undermine the financial condition of that great sport or its place at the heart of our national life.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the register. I caution the Minister that the civil service always underestimates the extent of potential for fraud and the black market. Whether with tobacco smuggling, excise fraud, VAT fraud, self-employment scams or covid scams, it is continually surprised by what happens. Before he brings out the gambling White Paper, will he talk to the racing and gaming industry to ensure that his proposals do not fuel the black market and organised crime?

Horse Racing

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly. Thanks to the vaccine, we have been able to reopen racing after more than a year in which there were no crowds—and for 11 weeks in 2020, it was closed altogether. It is thanks to the vaccine that the crowds are back, and long may they remain so. I will avoid the particular issue of the passports question; I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about it, and perhaps it can be the subject of the next Adjournment debate.

Let me pick up the economic point that my hon. Friend has raised. Nationally, aside from its contribution of about £4 billion a year to the UK economy, racing as an industry has acted as a bridgehead for significant trade with and investment in the UK. I really want to land this point. Examples include massive investment in business, property and universities by investors who come to the UK because of our racing. As we work to build an outward-looking, international, free-trading global Britain, that investment is vital. In this mission, soft power is incredibly important, and when it comes to soft power, there is little more powerful than horse racing. Through the sport’s historic connection to what could be described as our oldest and most important soft power asset, the monarchy, countries and investors around the world are eager to see and invest in horse racing here in the UK. Our horses compete around the world, are watched on television around the world, and are loved around the world. For instance, Royal Ascot and the Grand National are broadcast to nearly 600 million people in 200 countries annually. We must safeguard and cherish this national treasure. We must not allow horse racing to fall behind in Britain.

Like many industries, racing has been hit significantly by the pandemic. We know that the lockdowns saved lives, and that without them we would have suffered much more, but we also know—and I know—that forcing businesses to close had a significant impact on our economy and on many industries. As I said earlier, in 2020 racing was closed for more than 10 weeks. Thanks to the vaccine, it has been able to reopen, but it is estimated that it lost between £400 and £450 million in revenues. I pay tribute to the Minister’s Department, to the policy officials, to Mark Hicks, the private secretary—he was my private secretary, and an excellent one at that—and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for implementing one of the most generous and successful support packages in the world. From speaking to my constituents, I know that without the furlough scheme and the £21 million of funding in the sport winter survival package, the racing industry, and all the jobs of those who work in racing, would have been wiped sideways.

In spite of that great work, however, we still have a significant problem as we come out of the pandemic. Prize money—which is the lifeblood of the industry, enabling owners to generate a return on their investment—has fallen by 20% from 2019 levels. Sales of horses have fallen by over 20%, and more than 60% of major breeding operations are reporting declines in turnover. If we do not take action now, we will be overtaken by countries around the world as the global hub of racing, and we must not let that happen.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate for his constituency. Is it not the case that much of the prize money comes from the betting industry, and that that is an important part of the ecosystem? Although we may need to deal with problem gambling, we should recognise that for many gambling is an innocent source of pleasure. He also mentioned the effect of the lockdown. Would it not be much better for the industry to have vaccine passes rather than another lockdown, which would be disastrous?

[Matt Hancock]

I certainly do not want to see another lockdown, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not, because he was unenthusiastic about the ones that we had in the past. I do not want to get into the vaccine passport issue, but I agree strongly with what he said at the start, which is that we must tackle problem gambling. I bow to no one in my desire to tackle problem gambling, which I addressed when I was in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. At the same time, however, many people enjoy a flutter, and a day at the races is an enjoyable experience that is enhanced for many people by gambling in a completely responsible and controlled way. The symbiosis between horse racing and gambling is important, and I would argue that gambling—especially gambling in person at a racecourse—is a much safer proposition than some of the modern electronic and online offers.

I want to come back to the point about the risk, because we are at a moment of peril—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

I thank the hon. Members who have joined this evening’s Adjournment debate.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) for securing and initiating this debate and, indeed, for advocating on behalf of his local industry with such passion and evident tenacity, which I look forward to experiencing again. I am informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), that not only is he willing to accept that invitation to Newmarket but he has already scheduled a trip to Newmarket next week, when he will be meeting members of the horse racing fraternity and, I hope, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. Diary permitting, I would be delighted to follow in his footsteps at a later time.

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital contribution of racing to the economy not just in his constituency, where Newmarket and its supporting infrastructure is such a significant employer, but throughout the United Kingdom. As he rightly says, horse racing is the second largest sport in the UK by attendance, employment and annual revenue. According to its governing body, the British Horseracing Authority, racing is worth over £4 billion per annum to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure, much of which is focused on rural areas.

More than 20,000 people are directly employed across 59 licensed racecourses, hundreds of training yards and thousands of breeding operations. As my right hon. Friend said, tens of thousands of additional jobs are supported in the wider rural economy through the supply chain and all the sectors he outlined during his excellent speech. I also agree entirely with the points he made about horse racing’s contribution to the UK’s soft power. Clearly, people from around the world come to the UK to participate and watch our fantastic horse racing meets, and to invest here in stud farms and horse racing yards directly as well. So racing significantly adds to the UK’s international prestige and our global leadership in this industry is something we should cherish and certainly be preserving.

The horse-race betting levy, the topic of my right hon. Friend’s speech, was of course introduced more than 50 years ago, in the 1960s, when the betting industry was somewhat deregulated and placing bets away from racecourses was permitted. At the time, there were fears that people would leave the racecourses and bet on the high street, and the levy was introduced to try to mitigate that risk. Thankfully, over those past 50 or 60 years racing has proved enduringly popular, despite the concerns articulated back in the 1960s. Nothing better illustrates its enduring popularity than the vibrancy of its recovery as we have returned to normal after covid and restrictions on flagship meetings were removed. I understand that attendance at the recent Qatar Goodwood festival this year was close to the figures in 2019, which is fantastic news. Racing was the first sport to return, behind closed doors, after the first national lockdown—I wonder whether my right hon. Friend’s hand may have been behind that move, in some way, in June last year. I am pleased that horse racing has continued without interruption since then. The fact that it has been able to return so swiftly is thanks in no small part to the British Horseracing Authority to incorporate covid measures into the already meticulous protocols.

[John Spellar]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. He referred to the outdated view that the interests of bookmakers on the high street, regulated and onshore, were somehow in conflict with those of the racecourses. Should we not, as the right hon. Member for West Suffolk indicated, actually see them in a symbiotic relationship, as part of the same ecosystem, supporting each other?

[Chris Philp]

I was referring to the fears articulated during the 1960s, which of course have subsequently proven not to have come to pass, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The horse racing levy is a direct expression of the symbiosis that he refers to: the support that that two industries give one another. The one would certainly be weaker without the other, so I entirely agree with what he just said.

I also wish to reflect on the support that has been provided to racing during the pandemic, which my right hon. Friend referred to. Of course, horse racing has benefited from the economy-wide support that all businesses have received—the rates relief and the support on jobs, through things such as the furlough scheme, which have been provided by the taxpayer. In addition, the horse racing industry, by way of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and The Racing Foundation has also received £28 million in terms of cash flow and hardship support, and £20 million of levy funds were aimed at supporting racecourses, with £8 million from the foundation supporting individuals in the sector. So the sector has received substantial support not only generally, but specifically. Since then, the HBLB has agreed to make additional contributions to prize money until the end of December, which will help to mitigate the lower amounts made available by courses due to covid—this partly addresses the concern that my right hon. Friend raised a little earlier.

As my right hon. Friend said, racecourses are also accessing support through the sports survival package, organised by the sport Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire, where a £21.5 million loan has been made to the HBLB to enable it to provide extra. The HBLB has earmarked £15 million of that to be distributed via prize money this year, 2021, keeping a further £6.5 million in reserve for 2022. Of course, it has not been a one-way street, because horse racing has given back. It has donated £2.6 million to NHS charities from betting on the grand national, and a great deal of voluntary work has been done as well. I pay tribute to the horse racing industry’s contribution to our country during this time of crisis.

Given that time is pressing, let me address directly some of the requests my right hon. Friend made in his excellent speech. On a review of the horserace betting levy, it was of course reviewed relatively recently in 2017, when my right hon. Friend was a Minister in the Department, albeit not directly responsible for this policy area. In that review, the Government fixed the levy at 10% of bookmakers’ gross profits, to avoid annual negotiations, and based the levy on gross gambling yield—in effect, the gross profit—rather than turnover, so that there was a certain amount of risk-sharing between the gambling industry and the horse racing industry. One could conceive of circumstances in which, for some reason—unexpected events—the gambling yield might go down. That would clearly affect both parts of the sector, which are symbiotic, rather than falling wholly on the shoulders of the gambling industry, which is why the levy was originally constructed in that way.

A review is due to take place in three years’ time, in 2024. I am of course willing to listen to detailed representations if there is a case for looking at it again sooner. I think that the measures that I have set out addressed the issues in respect of covid, but if there are particular reasons why a review ought to be considered sooner, I would be happy to look at detailed representations from either my right hon. Friend or the industry, and I would consider them carefully. Having been appointed only a week ago, almost to the hour, I do not want to race to make any commitments in this policy area, but I will of course listen carefully.

Review of the Gambling Act 2005

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate on the review of the Gambling Act 2005. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on betting and gaming. I thank the Minister for Media and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), for his engagement with the industry and the APPG on this issue. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), as I know that he did the same when gambling fell under his ministerial remit.

Betting and gaming is a key part of the UK’s dynamic and diverse leisure and entertainment industry. Betting and Gaming Council companies alone support 119,000 jobs. The figure is even higher if we include wider bingo, adult gaming centres and arcades on seaside piers. The online sector in particular is responsible for a growing number of well-paid tech jobs. The Government desperately need those jobs and the tax revenue they bring as we rightly build back better from the pandemic.

[John Spellar (War|ley) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Is there not also a very big supply chain for these outlets, and is the not the fact that the industry adds to the life of this country, and is one factor that makes us an attractive venue for visitor attractions, greatly to be encouraged?

[Scott Benton]

The right hon. Member makes a brilliant point. It is not just about the jobs, directly and indirectly, and the taxation to the Exchequer; it is also about the contribution of the industry to the cultural fabric of our society. I appreciate that point and will refer to it later.

The industry’s contribution to the national economy and local economies such as mine in Blackpool must be taken into account during the upcoming gambling review, which provides a golden opportunity to upgrade much of the legislation in an area that is increasingly becoming analogue in a digital age.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) on obtaining this debate, which comes hard on the heels of the debate we had last week in Westminster Hall about casinos. I also thank him for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on betting and gaming and all the members of the group for their engagement with us over the gambling review and the assessment of what further measures are necessary.

Let me start by making clear that the Government have a very simple vision for the gambling sector. We want the millions of people who choose to gamble in Britain to be able to do so in a safe way. The sector needs to have up-to-date legislation and protections, with a strong regulator with the powers and resources needed to oversee a responsible industry that offers customer choice while protecting players. As the Minister for sport, heritage and tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) set out last December, the aim of our gambling review is to ensure that those objectives can be delivered in the digital age and that we have the balance right between protecting people from harm and maintaining freedom of choice in how they spend their money and leisure time.

Gambling is a legitimate leisure activity, and there are millions of gamblers in this country. In the year to March, 40% of all adults surveyed had taken part in at least one form of gambling in the previous four weeks, which is down from 47% in the pre-pandemic year to March 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has mentioned—indeed, it was endorsed by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar)—businesses such as casinos and the bingo provide jobs and opportunities for social engagement in towns and cities right across the country. In some areas, online gambling is also an important source of skilled technology jobs.

While every single type of gambling comes with an element of risk, some forms are undoubtedly associated with higher risks than others. When I first took on responsibility for this brief, one of the first meetings I had was with the lived experience advisory group set up by the Gambling Commission to hear from those who have suffered from gambling addiction, members of their families and those affected by it. We know that something like 300,000 people are classified as problem gamblers in this country, and we are very much aware that it can devastate not just their lives but those around them. This morning I had a meeting with the Gambling with Lives charity, in which it described some of the most tragic cases where gambling addiction had certainly contributed to someone’s decision to take their own life.

We already have a public health approach to gambling regulation, with preventive rules designed to minimise the risk of harm to all consumers, and the provision of treatment to help those who suffer harm. However, in this review, we are taking a very close look at whether further measures are needed to deliver the Government’s objectives and to protect people in proportionate but robust ways.

Of course, that has to be based on evidence, which is why we started with the call for evidence. That closed at the end of March and received around 16,000 responses. I am grateful to the huge range of individuals and organisations that made submissions, including representatives of the industry, academics, researchers, charities, campaign groups and, as I said earlier, Members of this House and the other place. It is our intention to publish a White Paper later this year, which will set out the Government’s vision for change and allow all those with an interest to continue to shape policy. Ahead of that, I can give some indication of one or two of the areas in which we are thinking of making further change.

It has become clear that we need to take a holistic approach to gambling reform, recognising where parallels apply across sectors and issues that have traditionally been thought of as entirely distinct. We need to design a coherent package that is flexible enough to respond to future changes and innovation.

I was the Opposition spokesman during the passage of the Gambling Act 2005. Online gambling was hardly mentioned during the entire course of the debate on that Bill. Then, it was in its infancy, yet now it has become one of the major forms of gambling, and in some ways it has created greater risks. It has transformed the industry, and certain safeguards have come with it. Operators can and must use customers’ data to identify where they may be at risk of harm and to intervene accordingly. It is also now possible to self-exclude from all forms of online gambling through one single request. Since April last year, membership of GAMSTOP has been a requirement for all licensed operators.

On the other hand, online gambling has given rise to new products, which are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That challenges the assumption in the 2005 Act that controlling availability is a way of controlling risk. As I said, online gambling now accounts for more revenue than gambling in person, and the shift in how people gamble has become even clearer over the last 18 months as a result of the pandemic.

[John Spellar]

It is not just online but offshore, which very often is unregulated.

[Mr Whittingdale]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the threat posed by the black market, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did in his intervention. That is certainly something we need to bear in mind. It is very important that we create a safe space where people are given protection if they are gambling online, but we do not want to drive them away from the regulated sector and into the black market. That is certainly something that we will bear in mind during our consideration of these things.

We are looking at whether further controls for play online would be effective in preventing gambling harm, including whether greater controls are needed at account or product level. We are also working closely with the Gambling Commission on its parallel work to improve how operators interact with customers, and we will ensure that any new checks that it introduces to increase protections for those who are financially vulnerable, binge gambling or losing significant amounts over time harmonise with the aims of our own review.

While it is the case that more people are now gambling online, the land-based sector is still very important in our gambling landscape, and of course it accounts for more than four fifths of the jobs in gambling. I absolutely recognise the important social role that some gambling clubs play in communities. We know in particular that bingo clubs attract a wide demographic of players who rely on those places as spaces to socialise and see friends. I am looking forward to my visit to Buzz Bingo in Clacton-on-Sea on Monday.

We recognise the importance both of a well regulated sector that keeps people safe wherever they choose to gamble and of a strong gambling industry that supports jobs. I will not repeat what I said last week about the casino sector, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South knows, there is a need to look at the existing restrictions within that sector. In some cases, they have become steadily more anomalous, and they clearly need to be updated.

Another matter that we are considering is consumer redress, which has featured in a lot of the submissions to our call for evidence and in the public discourse. It is a condition of their licence that gambling operators must provide customers with free access to alternative dispute resolution services to handle complaints. That applies where customers are unhappy with an operator’s service or its response to a complaint, for example about paying out on a bet.

I recognise, however, that the current arrangements deal only with contractual disputes and do not allow for individual resolution if a complaint is about whether the operator has breached its social responsibility obligations, for example by failing to step in when someone shows signs that their gambling is getting out of control. That means that consumers may end up having to pursue action through the courts. Understandably, concerns have been raised that the current system makes it difficult for individuals to seek compensation or support. We are looking carefully at the evidence in that area.

My hon. Friend talked about the Gambling Commission. The commission has broad powers under the Gambling Act that enable it to tackle new and emerging risk through licence conditions without the Government having to take legislation through Parliament. In the past 18 months, for example, the commission has banned gambling on credit cards, tightened rules on VIP schemes and introduced new rules to limit the intensity of online slots, as well as permanently banning reverse withdrawals. We are consulting on and have now approved proposals for a fees uplift for the commission, which will take effect from 1 October for remote operators and from April next year for the land-based sector. This will allow the commission to continue to cover its costs. As my hon. Friend will know, a new chief executive, Mr Andrew Rhodes, has just been appointed to the commission and we are in the process of selecting a new chair. The commission is undergoing a reboot and we are looking at its powers and performance as part of the review.

My hon. Friend mentioned advertising. It is too early, I think, to say where we will end up on the issues around it, but we are looking at the evidence very closely indeed. It is worth emphasising that there are already many rules that govern gambling advertising in this country. The UK advertising codes make it clear that all gambling advertising must be socially responsible, that it must not be targeted at under-18s and that its content must not encourage irresponsible gambling behaviour. Gambling adverts are not permitted to be shown in or around children’s programmes. Compliance with the codes is a licence condition, so breaches can and do result in enforcement action by the Gambling Commission. Licence conditions also set out additional controls on gambling advertising, and the gambling industry code for socially responsible advertising includes rules such as the 9 pm watershed on most television advertising and the whistle-to-whistle advertising ban around live sports.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing us an opportunity to debate the issues. As I say, work is ongoing, particularly on scrutinising the 16,000 submissions that we have received as part of the review. I look forward to coming back to the House later this year with a White Paper that sets out our conclusions and recommendations.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I end by wishing you, my hon. Friends, all hon. Members and all those who work for us so well in this House a very happy recess?