Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I seek a lesser number in the shops, and fewer shops as well. We agree on many things, but we do not agree on this topic. The opinion that I express will win: ComRes did a survey of MPs seeking their opinion, and of the MPs who responded, seven out of 10 want FOBTs regulated. They want a reduction in the number of machines and shops. It was quite clear. If a private Member’s Bill is brought before the House—some in this Chamber are of a mind to do that—we can tackle the problem.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the maximum stake to £2, which is opposed by betting shops, would be a good way forward?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that; it is one of my concluding points. I know that other Members are of the same opinion. Yes, the maximum stake should be lowered; then we could manage the issue, so that people are not deprived.

The regulation of FOBTs is out of kilter, as I have said. The only material restriction is the four machines per shop. We have seen an increase nationally in the number of betting shops in town centres, and last year the Government stepped in and imposed a £50 staking threshold on fixed odds betting terminals, above which players are required to identify themselves to staff or sign up for a loyalty card. The objective of this measure is to help players stay in control. I suggest that that has not happened. The measure is non-evidence-based and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport failed to quantify what impact it would have on players other than the £17 million reduction—1%—in bookmaker revenue from the machines. Secondary research based on the British gambling prevalence survey 2010 estimates that up to 40% of B2 revenue comes from at-risk and pathologically addicted players—higher than all other combined gambling activities—so the Government predicted very little impact. There is also evidence that bookmakers are using the player registration as a mechanism to market FOBTs further.

An evaluation of the DCMS assessment of the £50 measure so far, carried out by Landman Economics, highlighted issues with the quality of the data provided by the bookmakers; it also noted that DCMS could not assess changes in staking, mentioned the absence of a pilot scheme so that the measure could be evaluated better, and noted that the evaluation omitted key questions that it is important to consider when looking at the success or failure of the £50 regulations. For example, the question why fixed odds betting terminal machine players might wish to remain anonymous is not discussed. Despite the Government measure, players are still able to stake up to £100 per spin, and it appears that bookmakers are using the change as an opportunity to further market products to vulnerable gamblers. Even £50 is still materially out of kilter in the normal gambling world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. We have witnessed today the common agreement among most in this Chamber that there is a particular problem with fixed odds betting terminals, which leads those who are vulnerable and seduced by the promise of easy money into all sorts of difficulty.

In my constituency and the neighbouring constituency, there are 135 FOBTs in bookmakers, where gamblers racked up losses of more than £5 million in the year to 2015. Those are two constituencies with some of the deepest pockets of poverty and deprivation in the entire United Kingdom, and they host 37 betting shops. That spend of more than £5 million is set to increase, and campaigners have expressed deep concern.

This problem affects some of the most vulnerable people in communities right across Scotland and the United Kingdom. People who struggle with gambling are drawn in by the glamour, the glitter and the promise of easy wins for the hollow thrill that these machines offer. They promise so much and deliver so little. We have heard today that vulnerable players are gambling as much as £100 in 20 seconds. Who can afford to sustain such losses without facing huge difficulties? It is no wonder that FOBTs are called the crack cocaine of the gambling world.

So far, the approach of the gambling industry has been about self-exclusion, but we know that that does not work. Research has shown there were around 22,000 self-exclusions in 2012-13, but more than two thirds of those who self-excluded cancelled the exclusion after the minimum period expired. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) has pointed out, this is an issue of social justice. It is clear that the particular danger of these machines is that so much money can be lost so quickly. We cannot continue to stand aside and watch this problem develop. The casino industry has said in evidence to the Scottish Parliament that these machines are a hard form of gambling and are completely unsuitable, as we have heard today, for the unsupervised environment of a bookmakers shop.

We know that more research needs to be done to inform policy. We need play to be safe and enjoyable. The Responsible Gambling Trust has said there should be further studies so that we can target problem gamblers using informed research. It is time the Government looked at the recommendations from the Responsible Gambling Trust on these machines.

We have heard today about inconvenient truths, and I would like to point out one such truth. We have all seen areas—usually ones with socially disadvantaged communities—that have bookie after bookie on each street corner. Despite what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) said, 55 of the most deprived boroughs in the United Kingdom have more than twice as many betting shops as those in the most affluent areas. That is an inconvenient truth. Too many local authorities feel powerless to stop that clustering, and the Scottish Government have taken action to tackle the issue through planning policy.

The betting industry has claimed that reducing the maximum stake from £100 to £2 would put betting shops at risk. It is a little known fact that like the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I, too, once worked for betting shops—for two high street betting shops to put myself through university, working in just about every bookmakers in and around Glasgow. I can tell hon. Members categorically that there were no FOBTs at that time and that profitability for bookmakers was never an issue. There are now about four terminals in each shop.

I want to make a very important point. There has been an attempt to make political points in this debate, which is utterly inappropriate, but they have been raised and therefore must be answered. It was suggested that the Scottish National party did not table any amendments to the Scotland Bill with regard to these machines. I can tell the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who made that point, that that is utterly untrue. Perhaps he was so busy working with his Tory allies against more powers for Scotland that he missed it. The SNP tabled an amendment on 4 November 2015 to clause 45 on page 47 and it was not accepted. It is true that some power has been devolved under the Scotland Act 2016, but what the Scottish Government are not able to do with the powers is retrospectively re-examine the licences for the number of betting terminals that are already available. The way that the powers have been devolved will create confusion because there will, in effect, be a two-tier system.

We know that these machines are an issue. We know that we need to tackle it, and I ask the Minister—if one thing comes out of today’s debate—to seriously consider making the maximum stake £2 so that people can gamble with much more safety and responsibility, and so that they are less open to being preyed upon by these machines and mistaken about the riches that they offer.

Scotch Whisky Industry

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Everyone here today understands that Scotch whisky is a huge player in the UK economy and overseas markets, and without the success of this industry Britain’s trade deficit of around £35 billion would be around 11% larger. This wonderfully popular product is the biggest net contributor to UK trade in goods. Exports are worth almost £4 billion and imports in the supply chain, such as packaging for products and casks for maturing the spirit, add value to our economy. The industry’s trade balance is £3.8 billion, supporting almost 40,000 jobs, 10,800 of which are worth £1.4 billion to UK workers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) pointed out, more than 7,000 workers in the Scotch whisky industry are employed in rural communities such as Arran in my constituency, leading to considerable added value in both direct and indirect incomes. Further, it accounts for 21% of the food and drink exports of the whole of the UK.

I am here today to applaud the success of this industry and its huge contribution to the UK economy. I am delighted that my constituency can boast some of the finest whisky distilleries in the UK with the Arran distillery being one of the few remaining independent distilleries in Scotland and the only malt whisky distillery on Arran, home to an award-winning dram. It opened in 1995 at Lochranza, which is the perfect location for producing the perfect malt. It is home to the purest water in all Scotland, water that has been cleansed by granite and softened by peat as it slowly meanders from the mountain tops into nearby Loch na Davie. Arran also enjoys a warm microclimate. The atmosphere of sea breezes and clear mountain air with the warm flow of the gulf stream is ideal for the speedy maturation of single malts.

I have painted a rather poetic picture. As for my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), I will put their gas at a peep because the Arran distillery, despite what they have said about their own neck of the woods, is a patron of the Robert Burns World Federation and, as such, has created a Robert Burns single malt and Robert Burns blended whisky in honour of Scotland’s national poet. It is the only whisky distillery able to use the image and signature of Robert Burns on its packaging—a true accolade indeed. [Interruption.] Not for nothing does the island of Arran have a reputation for producing the highest-quality whisky, although I am sure that the whisky from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber is quite nice, too.

I join my hon. Friends in urging the Government to make a cut in excise duty on spirits at the Budget next week to boost the Scotch whisky industry. The Government must make it clear that the whisky industry will not be viewed as a cash cow, as the oil industry has been for too many years. Failing to cut the excise duty in the Budget will risk holding back this vital industry and the revenues, jobs and tax receipts from which the whole of the UK benefits. We need to help to create the conditions for the growth of this industry in our home market and stimulate long-term investment. If we cut excise duty, the revenues will go up, not down. The current staggering and eye-watering 76% tax on a bottle of Scotch whisky is far too high. Consumers hand over almost £10 on each bottle of whisky that they buy. That is 51% more duty than beer drinkers and 27% more duty than wine drinkers. That is clearly unfair and unsustainable. The 76% duty is the fourth highest rate in Europe. A cut would at a stroke support not only the whisky industry, but farmers, local pubs, rural and island economies, responsible consumers, manufacturers, exporters and supply chains across the UK.

There is no denying that distilleries are a source of jobs in areas that, as has been pointed out, might otherwise find it hard to sustain them and they are strongly aligned with wider tourism activities in rural economies. In my own constituency, a visit to Isle of Arran Distillers Ltd is all part of the experience of visiting the island of Arran.

The Scotch whisky industry is, rightly, a source of pride to all Scots, and no wonder, but it is also a huge success story that needs to be told more often. The question is not whether the UK Government can afford to cut excise duty on whisky. The question is whether the UK Government can afford not to make that cut? This is an iconic industry for both Scotland and the entire UK. It has a crucial role to play in the economic health of the UK, and that must be recognised. I urge the Minister today to support a cut in excise duty on whisky and recognise this jewel in the crown of Scotland’s —and the UK’s—industrial strength.

House of Lords Reform

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers]

Humanism has always seemed to me to be the absence of faith. We could debate the hon. Gentleman’s rather philosophical point endlessly, and I would be very happy to do so some time.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire referred to a unicameral system. It would be a mistake to move to a system with only one Chamber. However, I would point out that, with devolution, Scotland is almost a unicameral Assembly; I will leave that matter to Scottish National party Members.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Although the Scottish Parliament has one Chamber, it has a very strong committee system. It is not an Assembly, but a Parliament in which the Government sit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

When I first wandered into the Chamber today, I thought I had come into the wrong debate, because the Annunciator shows the title of the debate as “House of Lords reform”. Neither my colleagues nor I believe that there can be any reforming of something that is so deeply undemocratic and rotten to the core.

There is no doubt that the general public across the UK are deeply disengaged from and alienated by much of what goes on in this place. It is dangerous for democracy when the very people it is intended to serve lose so much interest and faith in it. We can come up with warm words and grand ideas about how to tackle that, but perhaps the single most important thing we can do to repair some, although not all, of the damaging rift between those of us who serve and those whom we seek to serve would be to hear the calls—a deafening din in Scotland—to abolish the House of Lords. It is no better than a carbuncle on the face of democracy across the United Kingdom, and there is a deep sense of frustration with it across communities in Scotland. It has already been pointed out that this archaic, outdated and medieval and anachronistic institution has no place in any state that purports to be a modern, enlightened and forward-looking democracy. Just to be clear, we do not simply object to the personnel in the House of Lords, although we do; we do not recognise its legitimacy or its right to legislate over the citizens of the UK.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree very much with what the hon. Lady is saying. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) suggested earlier that this subject never came up on the doorstep. Does she agree that that is because people’s first concerns are jobs, housing, poverty and the health service? However, if people are asked about the House of Lords, many would say that we should abolish it.

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. When people talk to us on the doorstep, their priorities are of course job security, benefit sanctions and putting food on the table, but if we scratch the surface, we find that the House of Lords is universally hated, across the UK in my view. There might be small pockets of support among what might be called traditionalists, but for the ordinary man and woman in the street, the House of Lords is an affront to modern democracy.

What I am about to say has already been mentioned earlier in the debate. That is one of the disadvantages of being so far down the speaking list. It is bad enough that the House of Lords is unelected, but it really is quite incredible to think that we are the only state in the world apart from Iran that has clerics pontificating on legislation. That further illustrates the absurdity of this relic.

Despite all the plaudits and feeble attempts to justify the other place, perhaps by those who have pals or cronies there or those who seek to retire there themselves when the voters reject them, it cannot be justified to retain those who are unelected. They have often been actively rejected by the voters. It is arguably worse that some of them have shied away from presenting themselves to the voters at any time at all, despite having political ambitions. That really makes the House of Lords a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.

[Steven Paterson]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that this Government, who made their one MP from Scotland Secretary of State, had to aggrandise or ennoble someone and put them in the House of Lords to fulfil the role of deputy—Under-Secretary of State—in the Scotland Office?

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I wish to add my disappointment at the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who considers himself to have very left-wing credentials, has co-opted Members of the House of Lords into his shadow Cabinet. That is a travesty if ever there was one.

I may have been a huge fan of the political novels of Anthony Trollope in my formative years, but I have no wish to live in the 19th century. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will indulge me for just a moment, I feel that I must share some figures with the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has shamed me into doing this, and marital relations would become strained if I did not mention the fact that the distinguished—certainly he is in my house—MSP for Cunninghame North unearthed some figures that showed that nearly 75% of appointments to the Lords are defeated, retired or deselected MPs or former advisers. After every election, we actually hear the stampede towards the ermine, from this place to that place. If this matter were not so serious, I would be laughing. We have hereditary peers and Church of England bishops—I have often wondered whether that means that God is an Englishman.

[Martin John Docherty]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if God were a Scotsman, he still would not want a place in the House of Lords?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. We have in the Lords cronies, party donors, party-placed men and women—although there are fewer women than men—failed politicians, and retired politicians who are looking for a wee hobby in 2016. Perhaps that was fitting in Anthony Trollope’s time, but, for the love of God—Madam Deputy Speaker, forgive me—let us get a grip. I bet that when we do get rid of this relic, just like the smoking ban we will wonder why it took so long and why we waited so long. No one on these Benches is saying that there are not some folk in the House of Lords who are well intentioned or who have much expertise and skill to offer their country’s legislative process. No one is even saying that we should not enter into a debate about the relative merits of a second Chamber to revise legislation. That is a debate that we could and should have in the future. What we are saying is that anyone who seeks to pontificate over, revise, introduce or influence legislation in our Parliament should be elected by the people whom they purport to serve. It is as simple as that.

I am almost embarrassed to repeat the numbers for China’s National People’s Congress—as I have now made comparisons with China and Iran, I can see that we are in good company with those beacons of democracy.

[Alison Thewliss]

In his book “The Point of Departure”, the late Member of Parliament for Livingston recalled an incident at a Europe-Africa summit. A president of one African country said that they could not be criticised for failing to introduce full democracy after only 50 years of independence when Britain had failed to get rid of the hereditary principle after 500 years.

[Patricia Gibson]

As I have said, we are becoming a laughing stock all over the world.

In addition—and this is a very, very serious point—we are told that these are austere times. We cannot afford to help the so-called “benefit scroungers”, but we can afford to help the “strivers”—and the House of Lords is full of them. We must punish families with more than two children, because everyone knows that if a person has a third child, they are clearly trying to get money out of the taxpayer. Yet here we have in the House of Lords what many of my constituents would call a trough. It is costing £94.4 million. This dripping roast, as my constituents would call it, costs more than the Scottish Parliament—elected, accountable, forward-thinking, enlightened and representative of the people—and has even more Members than the European Parliament.

In my view, Clement Attlee was being extremely kind when he described the House of Lords as

“like a glass of champagne that has stood for five days”.

I much prefer the analysis that the best cure for admiring the House of Lords is to go and look at it. When we sanction vulnerable folk on benefits who are five minutes late for an appointment at the jobcentre, when we hammer women born in the 1950s by moving their retirement age further away, when my constituents see Scotland’s budget being squeezed and we hear this being called “a sustainable economic plan”, I and many others ask how that sustainable economic plan impacts on the waste, the affront to democracy, the dripping roast that is the House of Lords—and these people dare to pontificate on Scotland’s constitutional future. Even the Lords themselves hardly take it seriously: attendance is around 60%, although it has improved recently, perhaps because the dripping roast is drying up and much must be suckled in the dying moments of the House.

What a tragedy it is that the 2015 Conservative manifesto indicated that the party did not consider House of Lords reform a priority. No, let us instead prioritise bashing the vulnerable and taking benefits away from the poor. The Strathclyde review was a wasted opportunity —then again, turkeys do not vote for Christmas. They can tinker at the edges all they like; they will never make this affront to democracy palatable enough for the people in my constituency that they see it as having any legitimacy. Let us abolish this carbuncle on the face of democracy. Let us listen to the people. Then, they may begin to listen to what this place has to say. I urge the Minister to screw his courage to the sticking place, to get a grip and to get rid. It is time the UK grew up.

Tax Credits

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

We are not making any apocalyptic predictions about the economy. What we are talking about is the impact on hard-working families. We want to see investment in our economy. We want to see investment in innovation and skills, improving productivity and improving the living standards of all, in Scotland and elsewhere. We want to work with you so that we can improve those things.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way in a second, but I want to make a little bit of progress.

Let me pose this question to Conservative Members. What will you say next year to constituents, hard-working, decent folk, many of whom will have voted for you, and who have just seen their incomes cut by more than £1,000? Are you going to tell them that their hard work is paying dividends—that for them, work is paying? You do not have an answer, because there isn’t one. The policy is wrong, and you have the opportunity to change it: to do the right thing for the country, and to do the right thing for hard-working families in your constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black]

There are two points to be made in response to that intervention. First, it is worth remembering that 85% of power over welfare remains at Westminster. Tax credit is a reserved issue. Secondly, I think that the use of the income powers highlights a deficiency in the initial argument. If there is a need for the Scottish Government to top up benefits, surely there must have been a fault in the benefits to begin with.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that politics is always about choice? Notwithstanding the rhetoric from the Conservatives about balancing the books, they could choose not to spend £100 billion on Trident. They could choose not to raise the threshold of inheritance tax. They could choose to close the Mayfair tax loophole completely, rather than balancing the books on the backs of the working poor.

[Mhairi Black]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

The House of Commons Library also tells us that the proposed changes will deliver savings of £4.4 billion in 2016-17, but that means that the Government will be taking £4.4 billion out of the pockets of the poorest people in this country. If people qualify for tax credits in the first place, it is clear that their wages are considered inadequate to live on. Given that we can cite credible evidence that the new minimum wage will not compensate for the loss of income created by the cuts, we can conclude only that they exist purely for ideological purposes and to continue the madness of austerity. As was pointed out earlier, we know that when the average person has money in their pockets they spend it. By taking £4.4 billion out of their pockets, we are taking money out of local economies, further tightening the economy and increasing the pressure placed on ordinary people.

The third and final point that leads me to believe that the Government should abandon these tax credit cuts is the two child policy. Are we really saying that people should count themselves lucky if they qualify for tax credits only for their first two children? In Scotland, 54% of families have only one child and poorer families are no different, so this aspect of the policy serves only to perpetuate the myth and the stereotype that the poorest in society have lots of children that they cannot afford. Not only that, but are we really making the disgraceful proposal to our citizens that, as our Government are so compassionate, we might consider helping them if they have a third child so long as they have been raped? Is that where we are now setting the bar for providing decent opportunities for our children—only if they are the product of rape? Forget the fact that that is a moral outrage from the get go; it is also completely unsustainable. How does someone qualify? Does there have to be a conviction for rape? Or could there just be a claim? This is completely unrealistic. What further damage will it do to women who have suffered a heinous sexual attack if we make them have to relive that attack by giving evidence to ministerial bodies?

Fundamentally, this is an ill-thought-out, illogical and harmful proposal. Even the Adam Smith Institute has just this afternoon called on the Government to remove these proposals. I am therefore proud to say that I will support the motion tonight and that the Government should abandon their current course of action immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

As has been pointed out, this measure is very much part of the overall narrative of this Government. They have enthusiastically embraced both austerity measures that harm the poorest and the most vulnerable households in our constituencies while giving tax breaks to the better-off, and a series of ideological measures that can only increase inequality.

Scottish National party Members believe in progressive taxation, but these changes are not progressive. They are regressive, taking proportionately more from lower-income households than from rich ones. These changes will significantly reduce the incomes of more than 200,000 households in Scotland—that is 200,000 households where choices have to be made between eating and heating, and where families have to decide whether they will have to go to the food bank again this week. If the Government want to make cuts, I suggest they are made to the £100 billion being spent on Trident. If the Government want to make cuts, I suggest they do not increase tax breaks in respect of inheritance tax thresholds.

As the youngest of eight children to a widowed mother, I grew up in deep poverty—I know what it is like. I know what it does to aspiration and to motivation, and I know how corrosive it can be to every area of life. I suspect that if more Government Members had lived the life that I have lived, they would not be supporting this measure tonight. I do not want any child in Scotland to grow up in more poverty than they are already in. I do not want any child in the UK growing up in poverty. Far from the mantra of “making work pay”, this measure punishes the working poor. I ask the Government to consider the impact of this measure on our poorest families; they should consider the impact on our households and on our most vulnerable children. Anyone who truly believes in a fairer society must reject this measure. Anyone who supports this measure tonight should hang their head in shame.