Black History Month

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

Black History Month is a significant opportunity to celebrate the efforts of Britons from diverse backgrounds who helped to build our great nation, shine a spotlight on their stories, and demonstrate our country’s tolerance and diversity. We are raised to celebrate pluralism, opportunity and aspiration, and we should all be exceptionally proud of our history—I know I am.

Since the Romans, people of colour have represented many of the gold and silver threads that run through our nation’s rich and glorious national tapestry. Over the past 200 years or so, Britain’s history has been marked by the emancipation of people from poverty and tyranny. In 1808, the Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron, with the objective of tackling the Atlantic slave trade through patrolling the waters off west Africa. Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron freed in excess of 150,000 Africans. More recently, in the second world war, Britain stood with her imperial family and allies against the tyranny of Nazism and totalitarianism, and led the fight to emancipate Europe from Hitler’s grasp and Asia from the Japanese empire.

Under this Conservative Government, and frankly for as long as I can remember, those from ethnic minorities have been doing better. We are doing better at school and are entering universities in ever higher numbers. More people from BAME backgrounds are entering apprenticeships, which equip them with the vital skills they need to secure employment. At the same time, the number of black people being stopped and searched has dropped from 117 incidents per 1,000 black people in 2009-10 to 38 in 2018-19.

The Conservatives focus on the individual, regardless of their ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Let us not forget that the first black, mixed-race Member of Parliament was John Stewart, a Conservative, who was elected after the Great Reform Act 1832. Mancherjee Bhownaggree from the Indian subcontinent was the first British Indian Conservative MP, elected in 1895—a third of a century before Labour’s first Indian-origin Member of Parliament.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Although the Labour party has not yet managed to have a female Prime Minister and was the third or fourth party to have a non-white Member of Parliament, it has one record, which is that Bill Morris was the first major black trade union leader. He got that position by doing his job well. People on both sides of the House are trying to put forward that merit issue.

[Imran Ahmad Khan]

I always feel an immense privilege when the Father of the House intercedes; it is a great honour to raise his interest in anything I have to say.

Despite such delightful interjections and the Conservatives’ long history of advancing pluralism and diversity, there is still a long road to travel and a great journey ahead of us to achieve an ever more equal society. I believe that that can be achieved, and that journey can be made, only through the power of the individual, individual liberties and free markets, and by celebrating and learning about our history. Those are the ways to arrive at the destination. For reasons way beyond my limited understanding, Labour believes that it has some form of ownership over immigrant populations and the descendants of those immigrant populations, such as myself. It thinks it can permanently rely on our vote. Yet it is the Conservatives who today champion and have always championed aspiration and opportunity, regardless of one’s background or any other characteristics. It is for that exact reason that my late father, who travelled from the North-West Frontier of what was then British India, now Pakistan, and served in the NHS, was a lifelong Conservative supporter.

During the recent Black Lives Matter protests, I was disheartened to read banners stating, “Capitalism demands inequality”. They were clear for the world to see. I have rarely seen such a poor understanding of capitalism or inequality. Let us not forget—it behoves Opposition Members to listen to this point—that the key principle of capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties. There is no obligation, no coercion—only consent. Attacking the economic system that has unequivocally improved the lives of billions across the world will only lead to us all being far worse off. There has been a great misapprehension among many people confusing capitalism with mercantilism. For that, I would suggest a little bit of economic history would be helpful.

For those who wish to have state controls and impositions on free trade globally, let us also not forget that it is free trade more than any Government policy, ever, of any country in the world, that has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty throughout the third world, throughout Africa, throughout the sub-continent of India and elsewhere. It is through the power of fair trade that, while in 1950, 1.8 billion people of the entire global population of only 2.52 billion lived in extreme poverty, by 2015, 0.7 billion people of a population of 7.35 billion lived in extreme poverty. That is a very strong argument for free market economics, the power of free trade and Conservative values. If we are to achieve a society where everyone, regardless of any physical trait, thrives and succeeds, the only route is through Conservative values of enhancing individual liberty and championing free market economics.

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What a powerful start to this debate we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), laying out with passion the case that has, to some extent, not been heard by those on the Treasury Bench throughout this crisis.

I want, in part, to echo a number of the points the hon. Lady made and take hon. Members back to the start of the crisis when all of us as Members of Parliament were met with a series of increasing issues from our constituents. They were worried about not being able to get groceries from their local grocery store. They had loved ones who were overseas. They were worried about their jobs. People could not get loans to keep their businesses supported.

Time and again, those issues were sorted out by the Government to a greater or lesser extent and answers were found. At the end of all that, however, as many hon. Members will know, there was one group that remained excluded from a number of levels of support or where their ability to access that support was not sufficient—the millions of people in this country who are self-employed.

I want to go through some of those issues passionately, if I can, but also with facts. I am sure the Minister will respond with facts, and quite rightly so. She will, I am sure, mention the fact that the Government did find the right arteries, if I can call them that, to get the support to people, particularly those in the job retention scheme and others. That was a tremendous success. The ease with which people were able to access the support when they qualified was also a tremendous success.

The overall record for the Government in terms of economic programmes and international comparisons was also a great success. However, this debate is not about those successes; it is about the omissions from those programmes. A fact it would be helpful for the Minister to provide is to reconcile the difference between the Government’s assertion that 95% of the self-employed are covered and the other assertion that there are 3 million excluded. That would be a helpful reconciliation to have.

It is important for those on the Treasury Bench to understand the issues for the self-employed that have made that speed to get a response so difficult: the fact that their income is lumpy and unpredictable and the fact that they have a variety of employment structures, often taken up over the years at the request of those on the Treasury Bench, make it difficult for schemes to come into place.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to assert the fact that some people who are self-employed have been able to get back to work, but many involved in large industries such as culture, entertainment, film and music have not been able to because those events are not taking place?

Economic Update

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I will run through them as quickly as I can. She asked about the block grant adjustment. The OBR will do final costings for these policies in the coming week, and once those costings have been done, the block grant will be adjusted as quickly as possible. It should be done based on OBR costings, as is normal for these matters.

The hon. Lady asked about Barnett. I am pleased to tell the House that the sum total of Barnett funding for Scotland as a result of all the interventions through this crisis is now £4.6 billion, which is going to support similar measures in Scotland to the ones we are providing elsewhere.

The hon. Lady asked about the inclusion of different businesses in the VAT cut. For attractions, I refer her to principal VAT directive annex III, paragraph 7, where the existing legislation is drawn. The guidance will be published tomorrow, for SIs to be laid next week and to come into force on Wednesday. That paragraph has the full range covered in our existing legislation.

It is absolutely important that we invest in our future. This is something that matters keenly to both me and the Prime Minister, which is why, in the Budget, we delivered on the Prime Minister’s ambitions to level up in every part of this country with investment plans that tripled the amount of investment in our country from the last four decades. It is a significant commitment of our level of ambition and support for every part of this United Kingdom, building prosperity for the future by having an investment revolution. The hon. Lady can be reassured that we remain committed to that goal.

The hon. Lady also asked about support for those who are older. Not quite for the first time, although the only other time that we did it was very time-limited, we are introducing a payment to businesses to take on apprentices over the age of 25—£1,500 per apprentice taken on—for the simple reason that while most people think of apprentices as young people, some 44% or so of new apprentice starts are actually over the age of 25. It is important that we provide that financial incentive at this time of economic distress, to try to create as many new apprenticeships as possible, including for those who are older, who will of course also benefit from all the other universal skills interventions that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Education will take forward.

More broadly, the measures that I announced today—the jobs retention bonus for furloughed employees, the kick-start scheme, the VAT cut and the “eat out to help out” discount—are all incredibly significant interventions and all of them benefit the entire United Kingdom. It is important to note, as I have heard from the hon. Lady and other members of her party, how important tourism is to the Scottish economy—something that my Scottish colleagues have made clear to me. Rural communities and coastal communities especially play a disproportionately important part in the Scottish economy. The “eat out to help out” measure and the VAT reduction for these economies will be absolutely vital in driving Scotland’s growth going forward. That is a reminder to everyone that we are stronger together, one United Kingdom.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I welcome the positive approach that the Chancellor and the Government are taking. Were we to ask them, I think many MPs who will not be able to ask a question today would share my view that we should be green, red and blue: green by having economically and environmentally sustainable ways of getting the economy to come back; red by watching out for things that we should not be doing; and blue by being colour blind and trying to make sure that whether they are on the coast, in the countryside or in the cities, people get opportunities.

I hope that the Chancellor will pay attention to what the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said for the SNP about those excluded. The new all-party group is very concerned about those who have not been caught up by some of the support schemes. They need help and I hope that the Chancellor will find some way of bringing that forward as well.

Let me give just one example of the red—of what not to do. I am putting down an early-day motion—a prayer against Statutory Instrument 2020 No. 632, which goes under the name of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. It allows two storeys to be built on blocks of flats built between 1948 and 2018—I do not have a personal interest in this matter, by the way—which will potentially wreck the lives of leaseholders who want to get their freehold and put the price up so that people like Vincent Tchenguiz can go stuffing his pockets again at the risk of the pockets and the expense of leaseholders.

Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter and ask whether there can be a better housing adviser in No. 10 and in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to make sure that they do not get things wrong again?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support and am happy to talk to him about the matter that he raised. I agree with him that there must be a green recovery—something he has championed for a long time—and it will be a green recovery.

NHS Pensions: Taxation

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I will raise that matter with the Health Secretary. It is for the NHS to make sure that its pensions are properly administrated. As I have said, we are dealing with this issue urgently. We are not waiting for the election of a new Conservative Prime Minister to do that. My point about a new Prime Minister was that general tax and pension reforms are not likely to be happening in the next two weeks.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Will she confirm that this problem, as she said at the beginning, was created in 2016? Working hard for a few weeks now is probably necessary, but it ought to have been possible, by paying attention to the representatives of consultants and GPs and to those in these sorts of areas with similar earnings, to realise that this problem should not have been allowed to continue for quite so long. Will the Minister’s advisers look at the British Medical Association’s “Frequently asked questions”, which in February spelt out many of these issues? I ask, for the sake of those involved and the patients they wish to serve, that there should be a bit more speed—I almost gave it in Latin, but I might have sounded like a Tory leadership candidate. Get on with it, please.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am strongly receiving the message in favour of urgency.

Animals

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is good to see that he has been campaigning hard locally on these issues and supports this campaign and that his constituents feel the same. I can assure him that this legislation will be a material step on. It has been welcomed by charities across the board—I will praise them in a minute for the fantastic work they have been doing—which feel assured that the proposals will not only crack down on unscrupulous breeders but be a positive step against puppy smuggling.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Following on from the Minister’s proper remark about positive steps, does he agree that those who adopt rescue animals—dogs and cats, but particularly dogs—deserve a great round of applause because they are not only fulfilling their own needs but helping to provide a proper home to an animal that would otherwise be mistreated or abandoned?

[David Rutley]

That is absolutely right. This legislation means that people will be able to buy puppies directly from a breeder or from a rehoming centre. It is vital to recognise that those who bring a rehomed puppy or kitten into their home are really looking after the welfare of that animal. Their efforts should absolutely be praised, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has done that today.

The activities of these unscrupulous breeders are bad for buyers and also bad for the countless good breeders in this country whose reputations and businesses are at risk when the actions of others less decent than themselves threaten the integrity of the sector overall. That is why we are taking action today, just like we did yesterday.

I would like to thank the brilliant campaigners and animal lovers who have helped to bring this positive change before the House today. The Lucy’s law campaign has been championed by vet and campaigner Marc Abraham and his fellow campaigners at Pup Aid. Lucy’s law is supported tirelessly by organisations big and small, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Mayhew, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and the Dogs Trust, all of which do so much to strengthen animal welfare across the country. I should also highlight the important work and support of the all-party parliamentary group on dog welfare so ably chaired by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is in her place.

This decision to ban third-party sales of puppies and kittens followed a call for evidence in a public consultation that received over 6,500 responses, of which no fewer than 96% supported the proposal. The call for evidence was launched in response to an e-petition that called for a ban on the sale of puppies by pet shops and other third parties. The petition received over 148,000 signatures and triggered a debate in the House on 21 May 2018. This further demonstrates how Parliament and this Government can respond to public concerns.

Business Rates

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Ledbury comes second in Christendom after Cirencester, which is beaten by no high street town in this country. My hon. Friend is right, of course. The 80% rate relief that charitable shops get encourages a large number of them. I have a substantial number in Cirencester, although they are in the secondary streets, rather than the main square. I can perhaps beat Ledbury, in that I had only one major chain in my constituency. It was the House of Fraser, and it has recently gone bust, so as far as I know, I have no major high street chain in my constituency.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

However modest we may be about each other, it is the popularity of both the subject and of my hon. Friend that has drawn the crowd. In addition to shops, will he talk a bit about the rating imposition on automatic cash machines? Cash machines are needed in many places where the banks have gone, and if the rates go up on them, we will start losing them as well.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend reads my mind. A long way further in my speech, I have a little section on ATMs. ATMs and public loos get a good allowance under the rating system, so I will be talking about that.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

I shall turn now to Government amendment 16 and amendment 12, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). Clause 61 deals only with remote gaming duty but, as I said in my opening remarks, the issue is inextricably linked with fixed-odds betting terminals. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have explained the Government’s position to the House since the Budget. The Government have recognised the significant harm that fixed-odds betting terminals can cause to individuals both in money lost that cannot be afforded by many and in mental distress to the gambler and to their friends and family. That is why, having listened to the campaigning voices outside of Parliament and a number of determined colleagues in this House, to whom I will return in a moment, the Government decided to cap the maximum stake of B2 machine games at £2—going considerably further than the Gambling Commission’s recommendation of a cap of less than £30. All the indications are that a state cap at such a level will result in a significant reduction in the amount of money lost by people on these machines, as well as a significant reduction in the number of FOBTs on our high streets—possibly even their complete disappearance.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I hope to speak later if possible, but this is a rare example of when parliamentary arithmetic has got the Government to do something that will be good for them and good for the population. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fixed odds betting terminals, who has led a cross-party group over the years—this is not just about those who have come in lately—to ensure that the arguments are right, as well as the parliamentary arithmetic.

[Robert Jenrick]

I praise my hon. Friend for his role in this matter, and I will come in due course to the hon. Member for Swansea East and other colleagues who have played a decisive role in these events.

In deciding on a date for implementation, the Government were obliged to consider not just those who would have been harmed by FOBTs, but the impact on wider society—the tens of thousands whose livelihoods would be at risk following the new stake. Stakeholder evidence varied considerably, but it was widely acknowledged that there would be a significant impact, whether as a result of the cap in itself or because the decision to change the cap would bring forward wider changes that were already likely to occur in a sector undergoing a great deal of change as a result of new technology. The Government have not wavered from their commitment to set a £2 stake and considered the best way to mitigate the negative impacts of the policy on the individuals and their employers, giving them time to prepare for the impact if possible. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport published a written statement confirming that a £2 maximum stake will be implemented from April 2019, and we have tabled Government amendment 16 to reflect that.

I will now briefly describe the events leading up to this point. When we announced the decision to reduce the stake, implementation in April 2020 was a date that I discussed with the hon. Member for Swansea East when she came to the Treasury in late spring to talk about the matter. A decision was then taken by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to consult informally with stakeholders and it was then proposed in the Budget to bring forward the date to October 2019. The decision was, I believe, intended in good faith to represent a balance between expeditiously bringing an end to the harm caused by FOBTs and enabling those working in the sector to prepare for the implications for them. None the less, it became abundantly clear that a large number of colleagues disagreed and wished to see the stake change implemented sooner, which is exactly what we have done.

I am grateful for the counsel and the campaigning zeal of a number of Members on both sides of the Chamber, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and, of course, the hon. Member for Swansea East, whom I respect and whom I have enjoyed working alongside throughout this process.

I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who was an outstanding Sports Minister and is a great Member of Parliament. She clearly played a decisive role in the Government’s decision to reduce the stake in the first place and, indeed, to do so expeditiously in April 2019. I have always believed that, in politics as in life, all we have is our reputation, and she chose her principled belief that this change must be implemented as soon as possible over her role in government. I respect that, and I am sure Members on both sides of the Committee do so, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ronnie Cowan]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.

A report issued by the Gambling Commission in August 2017 found that more than 2 million people in the UK are either problem gamblers or are at risk of addiction, that the number of over-16s deemed to be problem gamblers has grown by a third in three years and that at-risk gamblers are most likely to be aged between 16 and 24. The National Problem Gambling Clinic—there is only one—is based in Fulham, under the watchful eye of Henrietta Bowden-Jones. I have visited the clinic, but I wonder how many Ministers with responsibility pertaining to gambling have? I believe that the Health Secretary has and all credit to him for doing so. The evidence is out there, but we must go looking for it.

GamCare tells me there are plans to create a gambling clinic in Leeds. I applaud that and hope that such a network can be built across the UK. That brings us to funding. The current funding model is not adequate or robust enough. Relying on a voluntary levy means that long-term planning is, ironically, a gamble. The practicality of a statutory levy must be investigated and realistic sums of money must be guaranteed if we are to take the necessary action to support and guide those affected by problematic gambling.

The new legislation around fixed odds betting terminals is proof that with the proper evidence, a little persuasion and the desire to do the right thing, this Government can improve the situation. That is why the Scottish National party is calling for a review of the public health effects of gaming provisions and a report to be laid before the House of Commons within six months. Only by gathering valid data from independent sources can the Government take an evidence-based approach to gambling legislation and thus ensure that the industry can continue, while fulfilling its moral duty to protect vulnerable gamblers.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Early-day motion 61 of the 2016-17 Session, tabled on 23 May 2016, welcomed the all-party parliamentary group on fixed odds betting terminals, and early-day motion 174 in this Session welcomed the re-establishment of the group. I pay tribute to those who have supported the group from outside, including those who campaigned non-stop to reduce the number of victims of the pernicious spread of fixed odds betting terminals.

Although this situation started during the time of the last Labour Government, none of us was awake to what was happening. Although Labour can take responsibility, we should all share it for allowing that to happen. We can also share some of the credit for the way in which the Government, without too much pressure, disregarded the rather wishy-washy advice of the Gambling Commission, which proposed a minimum stake of “£30 or less”. I hope that the commission will review why it did not come forward with a straightforward recommendation of £2.

There was a time when the Government announced that they would bring the stake down to £2, but it was likely that that would take place in April 2020. Then the announcement came that the change would be introduced in October 2019, prompting the resignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), because although the newly announced date was an improvement on the expected date of 2020, it was not as good as it could have been. We all ought to recognise that a combination of events—the powerful way in which my hon. Friend expressed her view, both inside Government and outside Government, having to change her status to do that, and the way that the Government recognised the reality of parliamentary arithmetic—means that we can now welcome the fact that the terrible effect of these high stakes will be reduced earlier than it otherwise would have been.

[Graham P. Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly. I am sure that he would add that our concern extends to the people of Northern Ireland, who are not covered by the measure and where this affliction persists.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I was going to come on to indirectly, but I will now make it directly. These fixed odds betting terminals were not allowed in betting shops in the Republic of Ireland, so how could the Association of British Bookmakers go around thinking that it was normal? That leaves open the question that he has raised: how can we make sure that people in Northern Ireland get the change they need? If it is a devolved matter and we need a Northern Ireland Government to solve the problem, I do not have an instant solution.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Yes, it is a devolved matter and it would take the Assembly to make those decisions. We do not have a working Assembly, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In the meantime, therefore, nothing happens in relation to legislation that is passing here. It is my intention, after discussions with the Minister involved and with the support of the House, of course, to try to ensure that this legislation is Northern Ireland-bound, as it should be.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Committee will recognise the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am very grateful for it.

Some of the tactics used by the betting shop owners have been disgraceful. I hope that some investigative journalist will write it up, page by page, date by date, and explain how it has been counterproductive for these companies’ own shareholders. GVC, which in March this year confirmed the takeover of Ladbrokes Coral, will pay £800 million less because of the date of the change to £2. Three years ago, William Hill’s share price was about 400p a share. At the time of the discussion about whether the fixed odds betting terminal limit would come down to £2 either in October next year or in April the year after, its share price fluctuated between 300p and 220p per share. It is now less than 180p. For every month it went on with its campaign, it destroyed the value of its shareholders’ stake in the companies that were taking profits—as was the Treasury, in tax—from these unbelievably unjustified machines.

When Paddy Power said that these machines were not needed for betting shops, other gambling companies should have paid attention. When people write up this failure of lobbying and the counterproductive tactics used, I hope that they will take it as a role model. We need a word to describe Parliament asserting itself to Government, but another two words to respond to the way in which Government have reacted to that, and those words should be, “Thank you.”

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

I rise to speak in support of new clause 12. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who have done a power of work on this issue.

I very much welcome the UK Government’s decision to abandon the delay in implementing a maximum £2 stake on fixed odds betting terminals. It is a cause of great regret that this delay was even considered,

“due to commitments made by others to those with registered interests”,

according to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), to whom I pay tribute for the stand that she has taken on this issue throughout. It is truly disappointing that it has taken so long to achieve the reduction in the maximum stake for these machines—so much time, despite the cross-party support for it across the House, and the loss of a Minister. Parliament has the power to do good, and when it decides to do good it should do so as quickly as it can without fuss or drama—even more so when vulnerable people’s lives literally depend on it.

Like many Members, I am sure, I have a particular constituency interest in this issue. In North Ayrshire, most of which I represent, there are 137 of these machines in 37 betting shops, with £5 million lost in 2016 alone. Two problem gamblers take their own life every single day in the UK. Any delay to serve vested interests would be unforgiveable. Many of us have been profoundly impatient, but I am really grateful, as so many people are, that this Government have at last seen sense and that these machines, which truly are the crack cocaine of gambling, will now be the focus of targeted action.

Conducting a public health review of gaming provisions is absolutely the right thing to do. Gambling-related harm is simply not accorded the attention that it needs. It is a profoundly serious public health issue, and a public health approach is essential. New clause 12 would require a review of the public health effects of gambling. Public health and gambling are issues that cannot be separated, and that is why new clause 12 is so important.

I used to work in a high street bookmaker, long before the advent of fixed odds betting terminals, and despite what bookmakers might tell us now, I have yet to meet a bookmaker who is living in poverty. These shops are open simply to house these machines. Bookmakers might talk about the threat to jobs posed by the reduction in the maximum stake, but the biggest threat to jobs in the betting industry is the use of self-service machines for people to put their bets on, which does away with frontline staff.

The Gambling Commission has pointed that out that any public health approach needs to address not only those who have lived with the addiction of gambling for some time, but the effects on young and vulnerable people. According to the Gambling Commission, children and young people need a specific focus among those who are potentially vulnerable. Their needs are different, and we may need a different approach to reducing gambling-related harm. We have heard today about apps targeted at children. Primary prevention efforts can be targeted at young people, often aiming to reach them before they have gambled. Treatment for young people with gambling problems needs serious and separate consideration from adult treatment. In most cases, it is likely to require a lower threshold for intervention and other co-occurring problematic behaviours to be addressed.

It is also essential that a public health approach addresses the effects of gambling on the families and close associates of gamblers and on the wider community, as well as on those who suffer harm from their own gambling. The approach needs to recognise that a successful strategy cannot focus solely on individual gamblers, but needs to encompass products, environments, marketing and the wider context in which gambling occurs. It needs to understand that restrictions on, or interventions related to, any of those aspects can form part of a balanced approach, backed up by accurate, objective, accessible and understandable information. It should seek to ensure efficient distribution of resources for prevention and treatment based on need.

It is important to remember that we are not starting from scratch. Vital work in this field has already been done by the Gambling Commission, among others. We know that most people gamble responsibly with no difficulties. However, some individuals experience significant harm as a result of their gambling. It is estimated that there are around 373,000 problem gamblers in England, 30,000 in Scotland and 27,000 in Wales. According to the Gambling Commission, those estimates are likely to be conservative. For problem gamblers, harm can include higher levels of physical and mental illness, debt problems, relationship breakdown and, in some cases, criminality. It can also be associated with substance misuse.

In many cases, it is difficult to attribute those negative effects solely or directly to gambling, but according to the Gambling Commission, the association is far too strong to ignore. Younger males and people from certain social and ethnic groups are potentially more vulnerable than others. About 1.7 million individuals in England, 180,000 in Scotland and 95,000 in Wales are classified as being at risk of problem gambling. There are also some gamblers who would not be classified as problem or at-risk gamblers, but who may on occasion experience harm as a result of their gambling.

Gambling-related harms are not all directly health harms, but many of the harms, such as debt, are connected with poor health status. A public health approach is absolutely integral to any war on the effects of problem gambling. All the evidence suggests that this is a significant public health issue. It has not yet received the attention it should have relative to other population-level concerns, but that is now in order—the time has come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

In the Budget, we announced an additional £630 for every family on UC. The Resolution Foundation has confirmed that this is more generous than the previous benefits system, but it is also better at keeping people in work. The reality is that if the Labour party was in power there would be no money to spend on those families, there would be no money for tax cuts and taxes would be going up for ordinary people.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The Minister knows this, but can she explain to Opposition Members that helping people into work and into higher rates of work, and keeping the credits and benefits they are entitled to matters, and that if Labour’s policy of freezing the roll-out of UC came in many people would not get the support they need to help them have the lives they want?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Under the previous Labour Government, we saw 20% of young people unemployed and we saw families trapped on benefits. What we have done is create a system where it pays to work. There are now a record number of children in houses where parents are out at work. That is good for them and good for the next generation.

Summer Adjournment

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak. If my leg stops me being here at the end, it is not that I want to miss the reply from the Minister, but I want what I say to be shared with the Metropolitan police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Home Secretary. I will send it to the Prime Minister as well, who, in answer to my question at Prime Minister’s questions some months ago, remembered the meeting I had with her when she was Home Secretary. It goes back to the disgraceful case of the prosecution of former Sergeant Gurpal Virdi, one of the finest Metropolitan police officers I have known. I could go through a great deal of detail, but I will respect my colleagues who also want to speak.

Perhaps I can start by saying that, when speaking about the police, what comes to mind are stories of reliability, calm bravery and dedicated individuals. I hold Gurpal Virdi in the highest regard, both as an officer and as a friend. I have known him and admired him for nearly 20 years. It was an honour to be with his family at New Scotland Yard when senior officer Bernard Hogan-Howe—before he became Commissioner—apologised on behalf of the then Commissioner for the treatment Gurpal had been subjected to by the Metropolitan police. Hogan-Howe awarded him with a delayed special commendation for exemplary conduct in the case of a near fatal attack on a foreign student. How is it possible that such an impressive officer could be persecuted and prosecuted in both service and in retirement?

Stephen Lawrence lived and was murdered in my former south-east London constituency. I was aware of many of the deficiencies in the police investigation of that attack. Gurpal set a higher standard for policing. There were consequences to his commitment to combating racism and his initiatives following a west London case, where he found the weapon, arrested two suspects and visited the visitor’s home. The trouble for him started when he asked whether it had been recorded as a potentially racist attack. Until cleared, Gurpal faced grim and persistent discriminatory action by his employer. I was one of those who stood up for him and advocated his innocence.

I do not have the words to properly describe the horror I felt when the CPS and the Metropolitan Police Service mismanaged the case that turned up 27 years after alleged events, and after Gurpal Virdi had retired, decided to go into local political service and was adopted to stand as a Labour councillor in Hounslow. His case was heard in 2015 in Southwark Crown Court. It lasted a week and ended with Gurpal’s inevitable acquittal. In the public gallery, I watched and listened as prosecution witnesses, whose evidence was highly dubious or vague beyond belief, took to the stand. It was clear that he was not guilty of misconduct in public office. Charges were thrown in so that, if he were found guilty of an indecent assault on a young person, term could be added to the sentence. He had not assaulted a youth in a police van. The accusations were absurd and unjustified.

As Judge Goymer said in his summing up, which was admirably balanced, the chief prosecution witness, a former officer called Tom Makins, denied there had been an assault, denied it had been sexual, and in particular denied that Gurpal Virdi or any other officer he had known had had a collapsible police truncheon, which the complainant claimed had been put up his bottom. There was no criminal evidence that a crime had been committed and there was nothing to indicate that Gurpal Virdi had even been present. There are two bits of evidence that the police eventually disclosed, one of which they were aware of within days of the complaint first being received. It was that an officer arrested the complainant in the autumn of 1986—I am being slightly vague, because the person claimed to have been under 16 at the time, or actually, he had not claimed it, but the police thought he had claimed it—and the only surviving record from that arrest showed that it was by a PC Markwick, who was not interviewed by the police officers in the department of professional standards in the 15 months that it took to investigate.

The second bit of evidence that survived was the court record showing that Gurpal Virdi and an officer called Mady had arrested the complainant in the spring of 1987 and that, because the person was young, he was held in cells overnight and appeared in court the next day. When the person made the complaint, he did not mention the second arrest at all. He claimed that someone called George had arrested him the first time but, with the second arrest, he did not mention it in any of his interviews to the police, so the one thing that could be confirmed was left out of his memory, and the one thing that could not be confirmed was what the case was built on.

I could go on at length because I know the case backwards, but before it came to trial I wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the head of the Metropolitan police and the Home Secretary, spelling out that the statements from the so-called police witness—Mr Tom Makins, who I do not believe was there either—contradicted six of the major statements of fact made by the complainant: where the person was arrested, why he was arrested, what kind of police van it was, what happened in the police van, whether there was an indecent assault at any time and what was said to have happened in the police station afterwards. Tom Makins contradicted in terms every single one of those significant statements.

Let me go through the trial—I will abbreviate this, because I know that 29 other people want to speak. Before the trial, I had asked the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to note the names of everybody who made a significant decision in this case. After the case, Gurpal Virdi complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, as it was in those days, and what did it do? It referred the case to the head of the department of professional standards in the Metropolitan police—the people who cooked up the case against him in the first place.

I know my colleagues think that this is unbelievable, and so would I, if I had not been involved in it step by step and had not been in court. I say to people on the Front Bench: please make sure that the Minister for Justice and the Minister for the Home Office get together with the police and the CPS and ask what kind of inquiry they are going to have to review the decisions that were taken all the way through. Sir Richard Henriques looked into some of these issues over the accusations of indecent assault by people such as Leon Brittan, Ted Heath and others. I demand the same kind of inquiry for Gurpal Virdi—not a well-known person, but one of the best police officers we have got—because if this injustice is allowed to continue unnoticed, without investigation, I think this House does not have the power that it ought to have to try to bring justice to ordinary people.

I say more gently through my hon. Friend the Minister to Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and to whoever succeeds Alison Saunders as the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service: please get together and say what you two believe is the right way to have an experienced person review the evidence that I have put forward in part today—and is put forward in rather larger part in Gurpal Virdi’s book, “Behind the Blue Line”—and take evidence from Matt Foot of Birnberg Peirce, Gurpal’s solicitor, and Henry Blaxland QC, of Garden Court Chambers, who represented him in court. Until that happens, I cannot have the confidence I want to have. I would much prefer to go back to praising the police for the good things they do and the bravery they show in answering every blue-light call, every incident of domestic violence, terrorism issues, keeping order on the streets, preventing crime and helping young people to grow up well. Until this happens, my confidence is shaken, and I hope that those who have heard me join me in asking for the kind of inquiry that the police and CPS should voluntarily commit themselves to.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Windrush: 70th Anniversary

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

The Windrush generation were both anti-colonialist and devoted to the royal family. As the years turned into decades of their settlement in the UK, their relatives all over the Caribbean had treasured photographs, in pride of place on their mantelpiece, of that generation together with their children in their Sunday best, posed against a country house background in an inner-city photographic studio. These photographs, treasured wherever people find them, were testimony to the growing prosperity of the Windrush generation.

As the House has heard, over 1,000 passengers arrived that day. They included a group of 66 Poles whose last country of residence was Mexico. The Poles had been granted permission to settle in this country under the terms of the Polish Resettlement Act 1947, which reflected the Polish contribution to the allied war effort. I will return to that point later, but the Polish settlement shows that there was a time when we were very clear, as a political class, who our true friends are, a time when we recognised our obligations of friendship, and a time when we recognised the valuable contribution that people from other countries make to our society and economy.





I stress that “the Windrush generation” refers not only to the 1,000 people who came off the Windrush but to all the people from the Commonwealth who entered this country between 1948 and 1973. However, the original Windrush generation are passing. Every week I hear of the death of a member of that generation who was a pillar of the community in my younger years. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood referred to Len Garrison, but there were many others who were so active and offered such leadership in the 1960s and 1970s.

Let us talk briefly about what the Windrush generation did and contributed. As the House has heard, they came to address a labour shortage. Very many came to work in the national health service, and they helped to build our national health service in its earliest years. My own mother was a pupil nurse, recruited in Jamaica. It was hard, back-breaking work. The nurses often found themselves working the night shift, or the early shift. Very occasionally, patients would refuse to be tended by a black person, but many more appreciated their care and nursing skills. Those women were so proud of their service in the NHS.

Many Windrush-era persons, whether from the Caribbean or elsewhere in the Commonwealth, came to work in transport. There was, for instance, Bill Morris, who rose to lead one of our largest trade unions—the Transport and General Workers Union, as it was then—but who had begun as a bus driver. It is no coincidence that Britain now has both a London Mayor and a Home Secretary whose fathers were bus drivers. Many other members of the Windrush generation worked in manufacturing and light engineering. Some of the most well-established Caribbean communities in London are in parts of London where, after the war, there were ample jobs in light engineering and in factories: areas such as Park Royal, Willesden and Brent, and Hackney Marshes, where the Metal Box factory was.

I must touch on the contribution of the Windrush generation to culture and music. Most people know about the Notting Hill carnival, but if there is a kind of music that I associate with my childhood, it is not just my mother’s beloved Harry Belafonte records, but ska, rocksteady, and the output of Trojan Records. I cannot end this section of my speech about the Windrush contribution without reminding the House of the earliest Members of the Houses of Parliament from the Caribbean: Sir Learie Constantine and Lord David Pitt.

The children and grandchildren of the Windrush generation are also part of this issue. In fact, anyone who came here from the former colonies—from the Commonwealth—before 1973 is here legally, and, in effect, part of the Windrush generation. That applies no matter what part of the Commonwealth they came from—the Caribbean, Africa, India, Bangladesh and many more besides—and it also applies to their children and grandchildren. Many of those people, however, are experiencing difficulties because the immigration department is saying that the immigration position of their parents and grandparents was not resolved.

Now, sadly, I turn to what happened to that Windrush generation after a lifetime of working hard, paying their taxes, bringing up their families, and contributing to a strong and stable society. They were treated shamefully. What was worst for many was not just facing material issues, but being flung into uncertainty and treated like liars. I have convened meetings with them, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, and they have told us that it is being treated like liars about which they feel most bitter. The Home Secretary says that 63 people have been deported, but the final total could be much higher. Our own citizens were deported.

We also still have no information on how many of the Windrush generation have been wrongly detained at immigration detention centres. I know that some have been, because I met them when I visited Yarl’s Wood earlier this year. The Government have provided no answers on how many people have been bullied or threatened into so-called voluntary removals. They admit that some people have been excluded—prevented from returning to their homes and families when they had just been on an overseas trip, perhaps for a wedding, a funeral or a family holiday. The Home Office still cannot tell us how many of those people there are and what it is doing to address their plight.

There are also those who were made unemployed. Perhaps their employer got taken over by a bigger employer and suddenly, after years of working happily, they were asked to produce paperwork that they simply did not have. Others have lost their homes because of the effect on housing benefit, have been refused bank accounts—although I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has moved to end the closure of bank accounts in that way—or lost their driving licences, and some, most shamefully of all, have had to pay for medical treatment and were refused treatment for conditions such as cancer. The list of outrages goes on, but the actions the Government have taken to correct them have been a little short-term.

Here I want to address an important issue. All too often when we debate the Windrush generation, Conservative Members start talking about illegal migrants, and some of us think it is wrong to talk about the Windrush generation and illegal migrants in the same breath. Let me say this very slowly for Members who refuse to accept it: the Windrush generation was not illegal. The whole problem of the Windrush scandal is that those who were legally here were treated as if they were illegal. There is a reason why they were treated as if they were illegal. It was not an accident or an aberration, and it was not incompetent officials: it flowed directly from Government policy. It is the essence of the hostile environment.

Let me stop here to make a point. Conservative Members have said that Labour Ministers and Labour Governments talked about a hostile environment. I have news for Members opposite: the Labour party is under new management, and they will not hear from the current leadership some of the things they heard in the past about migration.

A whole string of non-expert agents, landlords, employers, NHS staff and others have been asked to identify people they suspect of being illegal immigrants. The person under suspicion then has the burden of proof placed on them: they must prove otherwise, requiring a series of documents stretching back decades—four for every year. Many of us in this Chamber would struggle to provide four documents for every year we have lived in this country.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I could not understand why the Government or their agencies could not say, “If you’ve been paying tax or national insurance contributions for more than five years, the burden of proof should be totally reversed and it should be assumed that you are fully entitled to have all the rights of residency and citizenship in this country.”

[Ms Abbott]

That is an excellent point, and many of the Windrush generation people I have met or tried to help have been completely frustrated by the fact that they had a whole ream of paper showing that they had been paying tax for all these years, but still the Home Office rejected their claim that they had been legally here.

I am afraid to say that this is a product of a system put in place by this Government, and if anyone doubts that, they have to answer this question: who was it who said we would deport first and ask questions later? Was that not announcing in advance that people who were entitled to be here may well be deported and treated as if they were here illegally, and then they could appeal? Anyone who has ever dealt with Home Office appeals procedures must know what that means: the chances of the removal decision being overturned are vanishingly small. Of course, it was the Prime Minister who said we would deport first and have appeals later. Why she was speaking in that mode I cannot say, but some say it was all about chasing UK Independence party votes.

In any event, the Windrush scandal was the consequence. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central has, I think, written to the Prime Minister asking whether she was warned. She was warned: I warned her here in this Chamber when we debated the Immigration Act 2014 that the consequence of an Act designed to catch illegal immigrants in its net would be that people who just looked like immigrants would be caught up, and that is what we are seeing with the Windrush scandal.

Looking ahead, the new Home Secretary clearly does not want to go the way of his predecessor, and he clearly wants to put the scandal behind him, but it is a product of policy, not accidents, and that policy will continue to generate scandals for the waves of migrants who came after 1948, all the way up to 1973, and it will draw in broader and broader categories of people from the Commonwealth. This policy will continue to do that until it goes.

The Windrush generation came here to see the mother country. Some came to rejoin the RAF. Others just wanted new and more prosperous lives for themselves and their families, and they were what are now sometimes called economic migrants. In coming here, they enriched this country in so many ways: culturally, socially and economically. In our own cafeteria here, one of the most popular dishes, week in and week out, is jerk chicken with rice and peas. I could never have imagined that I would live to see that.

In general, a more diverse society is a more interesting one, a more challenging one and a more prosperous one. There is, however, an unfortunate aspect to this history, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. Despite being invited here—my own mother was recruited in the Caribbean—the Windrush generation did not always receive a warm welcome. There is an unfortunate history in this country of sometimes defaulting to seeing categories of good immigrants and bad immigrants. For a long time, anyone from the Caribbean tended to be treated as a bad immigrant, with all the stereotypes that were ascribed to black Britons. I have lived long enough to see things move on, however, and we now sometimes hear people who are happy to say the most vile things about Muslims and eastern Europeans exempting black people from their vitriol. History takes some surprising turns.

The Windrush generation—including people from the Caribbean as well as people from Poland by way of Mexico, and all the people from other countries who got off that ship in 1948—came here for a better life for themselves and their families, and they all made a contribution to our society and our prosperity. We were literally better off because of them, and that is what their modern-day counterparts are also doing.

Before moving to a close, I want to mention someone who has not received enough public tributes. Patrick Vernon is a social historian and grassroots campaigner, and he has led the campaign for a Windrush Day. I also want to add to what my hon. Friends have said about the importance of establishing a hardship fund. I have met members of the Windrush generation who have had to live off the charity of friends and family and who have run up debts because of all the uncertainty about their immigration situation. We really need a hardship fund to be put in place now. Those people cannot wait for the conclusion of the consultation on compensation. We also need to look at the workings of the Windrush taskforce, to see whether it is meeting the targets that it set itself to resolve cases. Some of the cases that I and my hon. Friends are dealing with seem to suggest that that it is not. Again, I join other hon. Friends in calling for an official Windrush Day.

Everyone in this House thinks fondly of their parents, but I can speak with confidence on behalf of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham when I say that if it were not for the courage, the hard work and the vision of our parents, none of us would be in this Chamber this afternoon as Members of Parliament. The Windrush generation has had a number of important effects, but none has been more important than forcing people to look at migrants as people—people with families, people with histories and people just like other people. If we could only extend the humanisation of the debate on migration from the Windrush generation to migrants of all generations and all times, we would achieve what I am committed to seeing—namely, a very different type of conversation on migration. We could achieve a change in the debate on migration. It should not have to take 60 years for people to recognise the contribution of a group of migrants to this country. I stand here bearing witness, and hoping for a better future when we come to discuss issues around migration.