English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance

Karl Turner Excerpts
Thursday 6th March 2025

(3 days, 22 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

None Portrait Several hon. Members rose�
- Hansard -

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. There are 29 Back Benchers wishing to catch my eye, so the speech limit will be a minute and a half. If you have to make an intervention, I respectfully request that it be very short. Remember that making an intervention may mean that you are not called in the debate, so please be considerate to colleagues. I will call the first Front Bencher at 2.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---
Peter Swallow Portrait Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Reading football club is a community club. I have fond memories of going to Madejski stadium as a kid as part of a project with local schools�just one example of the fantastic work that clubs across this country do in their communities.

Unfortunately, Reading also offers a stark warning of what the bad management of football clubs can do to communities, and the effect it can have on the beautiful game, as was so eloquently touched on by my hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda). I thank the Sell Before We Dai campaign and the Supporters Trust at Reading, whose chair is my constituent.

The Football Governance Bill will come too late for Reading, but I am determined that it will be there to protect clubs that find themselves in that invidious position in future. It is a good Bill. It was supported by the Tories in the previous Parliament, and that is why we have picked it up now, yet the Leader of the Opposition insists on opposing it. In her opinion, giving fans a say on how their own clubs are run would be a �waste of money�. Well, in the Tory game of political point scoring, it is fans who stand to lose out.

I ask the Minister to speak a little about support for clubs below the national league. Bracknell Town football club has been moved out of Bracknell by its owners, and it would be great to see�

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Order. I call Steve Yemm.

--- Later in debate ---
Chris Ward Portrait Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I want to briefly tell the story of my local club, Brighton and Hove Albion, which is very much the story of the recent highs and lows of English football. In summary, I have been a Brighton fan for 30 years. The first 15 of those were pretty terrible, but the second 15 have been fantastic. In that time we have played in all four leagues. We were one game away from going out of the football league; now we have spent nearly a decade in the premier league, and we have enjoyed European nights against teams such as Marseille and Ajax.

In the dark days we experienced the very worst of ownership: our ground was sold and we ended up playing in Gillingham or in a rented athletics stadium. Despite the gloom, we always had two things on our side. First, we had the strength of our fans who stuck together through thick and thin, raised money, went on marches and did everything we could to keep the club going. Secondly, we found a saviour in new ownership�a Brighton fan and a genius; everything you would want in an owner�in the shape of Tony Bloom.

Because of those two things, we have gone through the lottery from the worst to the best of ownership. We heard in the opening speech about the test of the Football Governance Bill being the Reading test, but I want to impose a Brighton test. Could the Bill have stopped the first 15 years of my life, where we experienced the worst of ownership? A second test: will it encourage more owners to come forward who, in the shape of Tony Bloom, are rooted in the community, serve the community and deliver a fantastic football team? I hope very much that the Bill can do both.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this debate and for her diligence in campaigning, along with many others, as she highlighted in her speech, for the future of Reading football club. In the Reading area, including Wokingham, Bracknell and Newbury, the cross-party approach that has united fans and politicians of all political persuasions is to be applauded. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member and others and Reading FC fans on this important issue.

Reading football club is a recent story of tragedy for its fans, for its community and for English football. Gone are the glory days of Sir John Madejski, former chairman, who embodied the very definition of what ownership of a football club should look like. I am young enough to remember seeing Roger Smee and Frank Waller in the stands at Elm Park as chairmen of the club.

Back then, Reading football club was an institution driven by its owners for the good of the club and for the fans. It promoted close links to the community and with its fans, built a great relationship with schools and was able to deliver premier football quality as well. That makes it more frustrating that it is now a stark contrast to what it was a decade ago and synonymous with the very worst of football club ownership.

Dai Yongge is not accessible to fans; nobody knows where he is. He has attempted to asset strip the club and is one of the clearest reasons why Reading football club is being held back from greater success. For example, alleged cash-flow issues under his ownership have caused the late payment of wages, resulting in points deductions.

People are just fed up with the way that the club is being run. Take, for example, the saga over Bearwood Park, Reading football club�s training ground in my constituency of Wokingham. This is a state-of-the-art facility that Dai Yongge attempted to sell in early 2024, with no consultation with fans on the decision. All he wanted to do was to get some cash for his business�for himself.

Sue Symes of Sell Before We Dai contacted me on a Thursday evening to ask what a clause in the training ground�s planning permission meant. At the time, I was a local councillor for Wokingham borough council. By lunch time the following day, I had a clear answer from council planners: the training ground development had been approved several years before, provided it belonged to Reading football club. Dai Yongge wanted to sell the training ground to Wycombe and further devalue the club. If the training ground was lost, the club was at a significant risk of having no alternative sites to train its squad.

I arranged for Reading FC and Wycombe to be reminded of the existence of that all-important clause, and within hours Wycombe had pulled out of the deal. That is just one battle that was won in a war that is hopefully close to concluding. I am pleased to acknowledge Sue Symes�s role in that.

Sue can rightly be proud of making sure that the sale of the club�s training ground did not happen, so that the club, the training ground and the stadium could all be sold as a viable concern. The club has been up for sale for more than 500 days, and it may have been close to selling several times. It will hopefully not be long before a sale actually happens, because Dai Yongge has bled the club dry and no one will deny that he must go.

The issue does not, unfortunately, end with Reading. Football clubs are not just luxury goods for millionaires to buy and sell like yachts; they are important to fans and are part of the DNA of their local communities. It is therefore good to see successive Governments bringing forward important legislation to establish an independent football regulator, which will provide a vital bulwark to protect our national game. I seriously hope that the new regulator will consider the case of Reading FC and other teams, such as Bury and Macclesfield Town, and take the time to speak to fans and learn the lived lessons of fans faced with an agonising process to retain their club�s assets and identity.

The Football Governance Bill is currently making its way through the other place. I want to record my support for the rules in the Bill requiring an assessment of the honesty and integrity of owners and officers. Importantly, the Bill also includes provisions to monitor owners and hold them accountable during their time in office, rather than just before they make their purchase. That will hopefully prevent any future Dai Yongge from taking root in a football club. I do, however, hope that the Bill will go further to protect assets beyond just stadiums. Protections should be extended to other club-owned assets, particularly training grounds but also car parks, hotels and other land owned by the club.

I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister answered a few questions. Will the independent football regulator, once set up, have any formal duty to engage with clubs that have faced hardships? What steps are the Government taking to strengthen the protection of club assets? Will the Minister reflect on whether the new Football Governance Bill, in its current form, would have prevented the takeover of Reading by Dai Yongge?

In conclusion, football is not just any other sport; it is an integral part of the fabric of our cities, towns and villages in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is what drives passion and desire among so many people. Quite simply, they want the five tiers of professional football to function because, from their perspective, if football cannot function, then how can society? Finally, I pay tribute to all those fans who have tirelessly campaigned on this issue, including the groups Sell Before We Dai and Supporters Trust at Reading, and people such as Sue Symes, Adam Jones and Ian Morton. They have all taken time from their personal lives to save a team about which they care deeply, and they are a wonderful example to our community.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---
James Wild Portrait James Wild
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Order. Interventions are not taken in wind-ups.

Yuan Yang Portrait Yuan Yang
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The referee is very clear that I cannot give way.

I pay tribute to those hon. Members who mentioned the importance of non-league clubs and of Scottish clubs, which are not covered by English football regulation. However, given that this is a Backbench Business debate, as I remind the shadow Minister, we can cover all topics that we deem fit.

Football is not just a business, yet it has to endure as a business. Clubs are not just commodities; they are central to our community. I thank all fans watching this debate, in Parliament and beyond, and our local fan groups in Reading, Sell Before We Dai and the Supporters Trust at Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the financial sustainability and governance of English football.

Gambling Harms

Karl Turner Excerpts
Wednesday 5th February 2025

(1 month ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Order. Can I remind Members that interventions must be short.

Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree with my hon. Friend that gambling companies are often preying on the most vulnerable in our society; those with the least and the most to lose. I wholeheartedly agree that stronger regulation is needed, and I will talk about that somewhat as I go.

Children and young people are particularly at risk. Just last week, The i Paper newspaper reported that children playing free mobile phone games are being targeted with gambling advertisements. Such adverts are priming children to gamble as soon as they are old enough to do so. A critical part of tackling gambling harms has to be stronger regulations on marketing, advertising and sponsorship.

Both Ben and Jack were drawn back into gambling by the constant offers and inducements to gamble that were seen everywhere. We cannot now watch a football match without being bombarded by gambling adverts. At the opening weekend of the premier league this season, there were 29,000 gambling messages—a 165% increase on the year before. How is that acceptable in a sport that so many children enjoy?

--- Later in debate ---
Deirdre Costigan Portrait Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend for organising this much-needed debate; I will declare a conflict of interest in that my partner runs the licensing team for a local authority in London. Is my hon. Friend aware of the 2021 University of Bristol study that found that betting shops are 10 times more likely to be in deprived towns than in affluent areas? It also found that although only 10% of food stores are located in the poorest areas, those places are home to 34% of amusement arcades, 30% of bingo venues and 29% of adult gaming centres. Will he join me in asking the Minister to take steps to give more powers to stop the proliferation of such—

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Order. I call Alex Ballinger.

Alex Ballinger Portrait Alex Ballinger
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I support her call. It is very concerning that those sites are concentrated around the most deprived areas in our society—arguably, the areas that need greater investment rather than money being extracted from their communities.

The 2005 Act is an analogue law in a digital age. The harms from online gambling have accelerated since covid, and it is vital that the Government act now to protect gamblers from harm. The stories of Ben and Jack are a stark reminder of the urgent need for comprehensive gambling reform. We cannot wait any longer.

None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate. I am imposing an informal time limit of two and a half minutes.

Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Mr Turner, it is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in one of these debates, even if you are not speaking on the subject. It is great to have you in the Chair.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on obtaining this debate. It is great to see so many Government Members taking part; there have been times previously when it was a lonely business for Members on both sides of the House to push this issue. The APPG continues to do its work because, as the hon. Member for Halesowen will know as a member of the group, there is a continuing demand to bring this industry under better control.

It is massively well understood that the harms this industry is capable of need to be checked. It started when we campaigned to get the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals reduced to £2. That was attacked, but we got it through, and it has led to a dramatic improvement in behaviour in betting shops and among those who use those machines after having far too much to drink in the evening.

The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was right to say that the number of betting shops that proliferate around housing estates is something to be seen, and it is because those companies want to get people who have picked up their benefits or their wage packet en route home. Some of them never make it home because they end up in the betting shop. Of course, that makes poverty even worse, because the families do not get the money, and it is wasted. That is a real issue.

I will not repeat all the points that the hon. Member for Halesowen made, but he is right that the original legislation is completely out of date, because it was made for an analogue world when it was either the betting shops or nothing at all. Gambling has now proliferated in cyber-space.

During lockdown, there were huge problems with gambling harms. People were sitting in their rooms for hours on end, spending money they did not have and ending up in massive debt. Suicides took place. The hon. Member mentioned his constituent, and my heart grieves for the family. I have met far too many families who have been in that position. If anybody disagrees with us about this subject, they should go and meet those who have lost their sons and daughters to the terrible scourge of gambling online late at night—on the slots, for the most part.

The argument is put to us endlessly: “This will close down horseracing. This will close down sport.” This work has nothing to do with that, because betting on a horserace is not the same as someone sitting in their room late at night on a slot, constantly pounded by the desire to bet more, bet faster, immediately. It will never damage horseracing—its purpose is not to damage sport—but some gambling companies are now pursuing children through various algorithms used in online games, and that has to be stopped.

Although the online stake limit has been reduced to £5, we think that is too high. The limit in betting shops has been reduced to £2, so why not have both at the same level? It seems a peculiar last-minute cop-out to the gambling industry to keep it at £5. It should be brought into line with the betting limits on fixed-odds betting terminals—that would make complete sense. I ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues and to those in the Treasury, whose hand is always seen in this debate because they are worried about the revenues. There are revenues and then there are revenues, and this particular set of revenues needs to be received with a very careful eye.

I welcome the introduction of the levy, which we campaigned for, and congratulate the Government on bringing it in, because it is vital. It does not just go to charities for their work in supporting those who have suffered as a result of gambling; vitally, it also goes into research so that we can look at what is happening. This is a fast-moving area online, and with the amount of money being spent by gambling companies, it is wholly feasible that they will find ways around what we are trying to do and use it in a pernicious way to increase their profits.

I have nothing against gambling companies. In a free world, they are more than welcome to give access to people who wish to bet on different things, but the real problem lies in the lack of any sense of remorse shown in conversations we have had with the gambling industry. The simple fact is that they make money when those who gamble lose theirs.

One of the areas we noted was those companies’ pursuit of people who have got into the habit of losing sums of money. Although there was great talk about how they should step back, and about the ways in which they were going to help them, that was, by and large, not the case. They pursue them right to the bitter end on the basis that that money is going into their profits. When we hear that an individual—who I shall not name —who heads up one particular gambling company was able to give themselves a bonus of £1 billion over three years, we must ask: what is the price of human life? Is it only about profit?

In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen and hon. Members in the Chamber. The sooner we get these measures on the statute book, the better. There is room for improvement in what the Government are proposing, but I wish them well on that, and I will certainly be supporting them.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Order. I now impose a formal time limit of two minutes and 30 seconds.

--- Later in debate ---
Jo Platt Portrait Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. One in 15 residents in Greater Manchester faces gambling harms—that is one and a half times the national average—and recent research reveals that the Wigan borough has the highest referral rate to specialist gambling services in the region.

We have heard the most poignant contributions about how such harms can include financial stress, relationship breakdown, mental health struggles and, tragically, even suicide. The impacts are therefore not limited to the individuals who gamble; for every person at risk, an average of six others are affected—family, friends and colleagues. Although gambling may not always be the sole cause of such harms, it often deepens existing vulnerabilities.

The path to recovery can be long and difficult, but recovery is possible, and that is what I want to focus on. One constituent of mine, David Smith, has a powerful story of his addiction and recovery. For 37 years, David’s life was controlled by gambling. He describes how it ruined his life: it made him a “walking nuisance”—his words—and ultimately led him to “hit rock bottom”. It was the moment that he maxed out five credit cards in one afternoon that led David to bravely seek help from Gamblers Anonymous. Later, he joined GaMHive, an incredible organisation in Greater Manchester founded by individuals who have personal experience of gambling harm. They and their families have been affected by addiction and, through their collective lived experience, they are working to break the stigma.

I do not have time in this short contribution to go through the story of how gambling has affected David’s life. All Members will have heard constituents’ powerful stories. I have seen David bring his audience to tears with the story that he has to tell. That is why these groups are so important. We have heard from other hon. Members that money from the public levy could be used for prevention, which is obviously key, but it could also support groups such as GaMHive.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

I call Chris Evans.

Chris Evans Portrait Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you, Mr Turner. It seems funny to call you Mr Turner—we have been friends for so long—but I congratulate you on your elevation to the Panel of Chairs. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this very important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), I add my condolences to Jack’s family, who are in the Public Gallery.

I come from a bookmaking family: my parents were bookmakers and my grandparents were bookmakers. I have always defended the industry, because I have always believed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), in the horseracing levy—as someone who loves horses, I have always been attracted by the investment in equine science—but there comes a point when we cannot defend the indefensible any more. We have gone too far.

I bought the newspaper on Sunday. My son, like millions of boys and girls across the country, loves Erling Haaland. There was a picture of him on the front page of the paper, and next to it was advertised a free £3 bet. I do not want my son’s love of football linked to betting. I should declare an interest as administrative steward for the British Boxing Board of Control.

Gambling is no longer just gambling; it is embedded in the sports programmes that we see everywhere. When I drive home from London, I like to listen to the match on talkSPORT, and it cuts over to a betting expert to tell people the latest odds. At the end of each round of a boxing match, they improve the odds on what they are doing. When I was in the betting shop, there was a limit on football betting. No one could bet on singles, doubles and trebles, only an accumulator. It was not possible to bet in game as can be done now.

I do not believe the Labour Government brought about the Gambling Act 2005 envisaging smartphones. That legislation did not envisage the examples we have talked about today—but they need to stop. I see nothing wrong with betting shops being open the way they are—they were once sleazy places, but they do support the industry—but I believe we have gone too far with advertising.

Gambling has taken the space of tobacco companies. Mr Turner, you are more or less my age; you will remember the Embassy darts championship and the Embassy snooker championship. You will remember the John Player Special Formula 1 cars on a Sunday afternoon. The livery of the McLaren cars was the same as a packet of Marlboro cigarettes. When we see Stake going round the circuit, it is the same thing. I really think we need a regulator with real teeth that can shut these companies down, and a change in the law. I hope that when the Minister stands up, he will talk—

--- Later in debate ---
Kevin McKenna Portrait Kevin McKenna
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not believe that a prohibition on gambling is the right approach—we can see how that would fail—but I believe that it should be a managed problem. It is a very high-risk area, and we need to look comprehensively at how gambling is organised, legislated for and regulated in this country. We should look at everything. It is time to review the legislation. First and foremost, I want this to be seen through a public health lens.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---
Louie French Portrait Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing a debate on this important and sensitive issue.

As we have heard, betting and gaming are key economic contributors. Last year Ernst & Young reported that the industry supported more than 100,000 jobs, generated over £4 billion in tax revenue and contributed close to £7 billion to the wider economy. Across all forms of gambling, more than 22.5 million adults in Britain enjoy a flutter every single month and generate almost £11 billion in gross gambling yield every year. The vast majority of this is done safely, supported by measures enacted by regulated operators and enforced by the Gambling Commission.

However, there are a number of people who have suffered harm because of gambling, whether that is financial harm or, in tragic cases, suicide, which we have heard about today. My heart goes out to all the families impacted. We must continue to take this seriously and provide the best support we can. For example, the current voluntary system funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers.

We are fortunate in the United Kingdom that rates of problem gambling are relatively low compared with European countries. Greece has a problem gambling rate of 2.7%. France has a rate of 2.9%, and the Czech Republic has a rate of 4.5%. The United Kingdom’s problem gambling rate almost halved from 2016 to 2023 and now sits at 0.4%, according to the gold-standard NHS health survey. We would all like to see the rate become 0%, which is why the sector already contributes and why we must get the balance right in this area of legislation.

Over the last four years, the sector has contributed more than £170 million to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm, with more than £50 million volunteered in the last year alone. That money funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers, which cares for approximately 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain. However, that work is now being put into doubt by the Government. The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025, which the Minister and I debated, among other colleagues, in a delegated legislation Committee last week, risk the much-needed funding stopping in the short term, as the transition to a new statutory levy takes place. The new regulations will lead to a double levy this year, with the voluntary levy still in place and the statutory levy taxing gross gambling yield backdated to April last year. Not only that, but this first levy period is being charged at 133% of the rate for subsequent years.

Even those with the purest intentions, including those providing the current prevention and treatment programmes, are aware of the enormous damage that could do. There are clear risks of a gap in funding from the ending of the voluntary levy in April to the first collection of the statutory levy in October. As businesses, the sector will have to take decisions to survive Labour’s tax rises, which could include minimising voluntary payments to the current minimum of just £1 for this year.

I raised that issue in our debate last week, but the Minister did not give me or the sector an answer, and I wonder whether she will answer this vital question today. How will prevention and treatment programmes be funded when the voluntary funding is minimised but the statutory levy is yet to be collected or distributed? The sector was broadly supportive of the statutory levy proposed under the previous Government, but the way in which it has been introduced, with higher rates than those the Department previously discussed with the sector, means that both gambling businesses and treatment charities are deeply concerned about the outcomes and unintended consequences. Will the Minister tell us today how many people she thinks will lose out on vital treatment in that time? I know she is not the Minister for Gambling, but she is accountable for gambling to us in the Commons.

As I set out last week, there are many there are many concerns across the sector about the lack of engagement coming forward. Over the several months in which I have asked questions, I have yet to receive any response from either the Minister or the Minister for Gambling in the other place. Why are the Government leaving the betting and gaming sector in the dark? Will the Minister finally give us the answers that we have been waiting so patiently for? What about GambleAware, which has stated that it needs the confirmation of its funding for the period to April 2026, when the new system will be fully in place? I am sure that it has also told the Department about this, but it is becoming increasingly urgent as it is uncertain about how it commissions services going forward, including commissioning via the crucial national gambling support network, which helps fund many of those charities that I have already highlighted across the sector. GambleAware needs clarity.

Not only are the Government consciously leaving the prevention and treatment of gambling harm in a state of uncertainty, but the higher rates of the levy now to be charged will also have further implications. The higher costs on companies will lead to business closures and job losses, particularly among smaller firms, as well as a reduction in tax revenue for His Majesty’s Treasury, and they will have a knock-on effect of up to £60 million in business rates that are currently flowing to local authorities. That, in turn, will have a dual impact.

First, it will likely increase participation rates in the black market, where no regulations or safeguards apply, and no levy revenue will be generated. As Members will know, black markets are created when gambling customers cannot access products or, more pertinently, find those products highly restricted in their domestically regulated market. No amount of anti-black market measures will prevent a black market from forming if customers cannot gamble enjoyably with limited frictions. Here in the United Kingdom, we have historically enjoyed a relatively low level of black market participation, but there is clear evidence that this is a growing risk and there are clear reasons why, including price frictions in bonuses and free bets, as well as other financial limits, such as affordability checks, not being enforced properly.

We are reaching a tipping point of the Government’s own making—a point at which those most at risk from gambling harm will be unable to wean themselves off gambling in a responsible and monitored way. Instead, they will turn to illicit bookies and international websites to meet their needs. A report by Regulus Partners confirms this, stating:

“On the current pattern of increasing consumer friction in the domestically regulated market… international experience shows Britain’s illegal gambling leakage could more than double.”

If that happens, the most at risk will be furthest from the help that they desperately need. It will also continue to damage British horseracing, as mentioned by other Members.

There is a middle ground in allowing players to engage with betting and gaming safely, with plenty of warnings and signposting to the help they can receive. If we push the cost of safe and legal betting to such a height that participants choose to exit the market in favour of cheaper prices and better odds in the unregulated market, it would undermine efforts to make gambling safer and would force more players and more money into unregulated providers who do not need to comply with regulations around safer play.

I asked the Minister several questions last week, and I will ask them again to see whether she has had time to confer with her colleagues. First, who in Government will be setting the strategic direction, and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in her Department, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury?

Secondly, how will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy, and how will the Government ensure all views are heard rather than just those of vested interests? Will the Government ensure that charities currently being funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not be given a carte blanche, which I know will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account?

I want to place on the record my thanks to the many amazing charities, such as Gordon Moody, Deal Me Out and others, representative of which are in the Gallery. They continue to do fantastic work to help people turn their lives around, and they are at the forefront of helping those who suffer the harmful effects of gambling. They should be the ones we keep in our minds throughout these discussions, as we try to strike an appropriate balance that ensures safe gambling across the country. Will the Minister reassure those watching from the Gallery and from afar that she will make sure that her ministerial colleagues meet them, listen to them and put in practice their expertise in this field? They know what they are talking about. Do the Government?

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (in the Chair)
- Hansard - -

Before I call the Minister, I remind her that I would like very much to allow Alex Ballinger two minutes to wind up at the end.

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I rise to speak specifically to Government new clause 34 and connected Government amendments which, as we have been reminded, give Ministers power to inspect the bank accounts of anyone claiming a social security benefit. I think it has been confirmed that that includes child benefit and the state pension, as well as universal credit and all the others. Extremely wide powers are being given to Ministers.

The Minister told us that the measure is expected to save some half a billion pounds over the next five years. I was pleased that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work was present at the start of the debate, although he is not now in his place and the Department for Work and Pensions is not hearing the concerns expressed about this measure. The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure told us that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work will not be not speaking in the debate, so we will not hear what the DWP thinks about these concerns.

We have also been told—I had not seen this assurance—that these powers will not be used for a few years. If that is correct, I am completely mystified by why this is being done in such a way. If we had a few years to get these powers in place, why did the Government not wait until there was some appropriate draft legislation that could be properly scrutinised, rather than bringing such measures forward now with zero Commons scrutiny and no opportunity for that to occur? There will no doubt be scrutiny in the other place, but surely a measure of this kind ought to undergo scrutiny in this House.

I chair the Work and Pensions Committee and we have received substantial concerns about this measure, including from Citizens Advice. The Child Poverty Action Group said that

“it shouldn’t be that people have fewer rights, including to privacy, than everyone else in the UK simply because they are on benefits.”

I think that sums up what a lot of people feel, although it appears to be the position that the Government are now taking. It is surprising that the Conservative party is bringing forward such a major expansion of state powers to pry into the affairs of private citizens, and particularly doing so in such a way that we are not able to scrutinise what it is planning. As we have been reminded, the state has long had powers where there were grounds for suspecting that benefit fraud had been committed. The proposal in the Bill is for surveillance where there is absolutely no suspicion at all, which is a substantial expansion of the state’s powers to intrude.

Annabel Denham, deputy comment editor at The Daily Telegraph warned in The Spectator of such a measure handing

“authorities the power to snoop on people’s bank accounts.”

I suspect that the views expressed there are more likely to find support on the Conservative Benches than on the Labour Benches, so I am increasingly puzzled by why the Government think this is an appropriate way to act. I wonder whether the fact that there have been such warnings prompted Ministers into rushing through the measure in this deeply unsatisfactory way, without an opportunity for proper scrutiny, because they thought that if there had been parliamentary scrutiny there would be substantial opposition from the Conservative Benches as well as from the Labour Benches. It is difficult to understand otherwise why it is being done in this way.

As we have been reminded, new clause 34 will give the Government the right to inspect the bank account of anyone who claims a state pension, which is all of us. It will give the Government the right to look into the bank account of every single one of us at some point during our lives, without suspecting that we have ever done anything wrong, and without telling us that they are doing it. The Minister said earlier that the powers of the state should be limited to those absolutely necessary, and I have always understood that to be a principle of the Conservative party. Yet on the power in the new clause to look into the bank account of everybody claiming a state pension, he was unable to give us any reason why the Government should do such a thing, or why they would ever need to look into the bank accounts of people—everybody—claiming a state pension. What on earth would the Government need to do that for? The entitlement to the state pension is not based on income, savings or anything like that, so why would the Government ever wish to do that?

If we cannot think of a reason why the Government would want to do that, why are they now taking the power to enable them to do so? I think that all of us would agree, whatever party we are in, that the powers of the state should be limited to those absolutely necessary. The power in the new clause is definitely not absolutely necessary. Indeed, no one has been able to come up with any reason for why it would ever be used.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

There is something called a production order. If somebody was under investigation for benefit fraud, an application could be made before a court for the production of bank accounts. If it was a matter of suspected fraud, there is already a mechanism available.

Stephen Timms Portrait Sir Stephen Timms
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, there is a clear and long-established right in law for the DWP to look into people’s bank accounts if there is a suspicion of fraud. This power is giving the Department the ability to look into the bank accounts of people where there is no suspicion at all. All of us at some point in our lives claim a social security benefit, and we are giving the Government the power to look into our bank accounts with this measure.

BBC Local Radio: Proposed Reduction in Provision

Karl Turner Excerpts
Tuesday 1st November 2022

(2 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course BBC Radio Lancashire is so important, having Mike Stevens and Graham Liver there all the time.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

We all appreciate the brilliance, the quality, the objectivity and the outstanding journalism, production and research of BBC radio journalists—not least, in Hull, in the coverage of rugby league, which you and I are both fans of, Mr Speaker. I urge the Minister to impress upon the director-general the crucial importance of that local knowledge in local BBC radio.

Julia Lopez Portrait Julia Lopez
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend—I mean the hon. Gentleman—for raising—

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner
- Hansard - -

Friend!

Julia Lopez Portrait Julia Lopez
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the importance of the sports content in particular. I know there is so much passion for people’s local clubs, and if that news service is not there for those local clubs, that sense of disconnection becomes more prominent. I have not had time fully to absorb the proposals, and I think there is some talk of sports content being untouched by them, but I will ask his question of the director-general when I see him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts
Thursday 5th November 2020

(4 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Caroline Dinenage
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I do not accept that. My Department has been regularly engaging with a range of creative industries, including the live music and cultural sectors, to make sure that the support is put in place for businesses, freelancers, visitors and the creative and artistic economy as we move towards the transition period.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on financial support for rugby league clubs.

Oliver Dowden Portrait The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I know just how precious rugby league clubs are to their local communities—and, indeed, to you, Mr Speaker, as you never tire of reminding me, quite rightly—and to Hull, which is blessed with two Super League clubs and will be hosting next year’s Rugby League world cup. That is why rugby league was the first to benefit from Government support with a £16 million emergency loan. That money is going out the door now, and I continue to work with the Treasury on what can be done to provide further support to the sports sector.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think the message is that there might be more coming.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner [V]
- Hansard - -

May I offer you, Mr Speaker, belated congratulations on having been elected Speaker one year ago yesterday? I pay tribute to you for the work that you have always done to promote rugby league at all levels.

I am very grateful to the Sports Minister for his helpful engagement with me about rugby league, but it is very unlikely that fans will be back in stadiums for some time, so can the Secretary of State offer more financial support to ensure that we do not lose clubs, such as Hull Kingston Rovers and Hull FC, both of which are incredibly important to our city?

Oliver Dowden Portrait Oliver Dowden
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, which is why the Sports Minister and I are working tirelessly with the Treasury. We wanted to get fans back in stadiums from 1 October. No one wanted that more than the Prime Minister, myself and the Sports Minister, but it was not possible. We know that we need to provide support to those sports that were looking to rely upon fans and we are engaging very closely with the Treasury on that.