Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Nusrat Ghani

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I hope that those who just walked past the Member about to speak are going to apologise.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

This is a small and, on the surface, technical looking Bill, but one that would revolutionise charity fundraising in constituencies up and down the country. The key clause is 1(2), which would omit subsection (3) from section 99 of the Gambling Act 2005. The law that would be changed is a requirement placed on charity lotteries alone that caps the proceeds of their sales in any given year. Put another way, if someone is running a purely profit-driven lottery with no societal benefit, there are no caps on the number of tickets they can sell, but for charity lotteries—the most well-known being the People’s Postcode Lottery—there is a cap of £5 million per draw and £50 million over the course of a calendar year.

What clause 1(2) would do—indeed, this is the purpose of the whole Bill—is remove that cap and allow unlimited charitable fundraising from licensed lottery sales, because, of course, it is important that the proceeds of the lottery go to charities, rather than just creating bigger and bigger prize pots. As things stand, there is a limit on prizes of £25,000 or, if it is more, 10% of the proceeds of the lottery. The limit is therefore £500,000 with the current cap. All the stakeholders agree that we ought to amend section 99(4) of the 2005 Act so that it reads £500,000, to maintain the current prize levels. My Bill seeks the Government’s agreement to that and asks them to exercise their powers under clause 3 to make the relevant consequential provisions. That is the extent of the Bill—two small legislative changes with a huge consequence for charities across the UK.

There are approximately 500 charity lottery operators generating more than £450 million for good causes every year. As I have mentioned, the largest of these is the People’s Postcode Lottery; indeed, it is the one with the largest reach in every constituency. To date, the People’s Postcode Lottery has coped with the fact that demand exceeds the cap by establishing different postcode trusts that each operate on a thematic or geographical basis, but I would argue that there are three fundamental problems with that.

First, it is incredibly bureaucratic, with each trust having to have its own licences, monthly returns, registrations under Scottish, English and Welsh law, trustees, audit and risk committees, monthly and annual accounts, financial audits, websites and so on. That bureaucracy increases costs that could otherwise be used for good causes. Secondly, it is deeply inflexible, with the funds raised under each trust being required to be directed to the trust theme or geographical designation. Right now, we see Storm Éowyn causing destruction over Northern Ireland and Scotland. If there is damage or some sort of major accident causing loss of life, charities, as they always do, will step in to urgently provide support. However, the People’s Postcode Lottery, for example, would not be able to divert funds to assist with such efforts because of the current rules on trusts, as a result of the cap.

Thirdly, even if we accept the additional bureaucracy and the restrictions on where funds are deployed, at the end of the day, all the evidence still shows that fundraising is being limited by the caps, and in any case, their value is eroded by inflation. It is estimated that if we do nothing and keep the caps today, the charities supported by the People’s Postcode Lottery will lose out on £175 million over the next five years. I challenge anyone in the House to argue that the charities in their constituency would not benefit from that funding.

We already benefit from funding in North East Fife, and I would love to see more support for fantastic local initiatives. I will list some of the individual projects that have been supported in the last two years alone. St Agatha’s and St Andrews nurseries received funds for the cost of outdoor education equipment and training. There has been support for Scotland’s international poetry festival, StAnza, which takes place in St Andrews every year—I am looking forward to March’s programme. The Newburgh wellbeing choir, which provides support for people living with dementia, was able to hire professional singers trained in dementia inclusion to lead the group. Nurture Steps had a project funded to run support sessions for parents of young children with disabilities, and Veterans Tribe Scotland was supported on a significant project to reduce isolation, loneliness and anxiety among those who have served our country. There were funds allocated to maintain a community playing field at Dunbog community hall. In the late summer, I hope to go to the Cupar big weekend, which has also been supported by charity lotteries.

I could go on; there are countless projects. For example, the Cupar food bank and local brownie units receive funding from their central bodies, the Trussell Trust and Girlguiding, that also comes from charity lotteries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Yes, I absolutely agree. Indeed, in a Westminster Hall debate just last week, where the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), also spoke, I highlighted that very thing: the national insurance increase will hurt charities, and there is an opportunity for the Government, through my Bill, to ameliorate some of that.

Children First also said that it understands that technical barriers place limits on the way that charity lotteries provide funds and that it supports calls to remove the cap. There are about 170,000 charities across the UK. Of course, not all of them want or need charity funding, but many thousands do.

There are many reasons why the House should support the Bill. I understand some of the Government’s concerns. I have been told that they are worried about the impact on the national lottery, considering the Secretary of State’s statutory obligation to maximise its success. However, I would argue that there is no evidence to suggest there is a detrimental impact on the national lottery from charity lotteries. The Gambling Commission has investigated this three times in the last 15 years, most recently in October 2017, and found no statistically significant effect of charity lotteries on national lottery sales. That was confirmed again in 2022 in an impact assessment by Regulus Partners.

My goal with the Bill is to keep the distinct nature of the national lottery by protecting its much larger prize pots. This weekend, the lotto’s prize is £4 million, while the Euromillions’ is £83 million. In changing the law on sales, we want to change the current price cap to keep the prize maximum at £500,000. It is a very different ball game, and the Bill supports the evidence that players of one lottery often play the other as well.

I know that the Government are awaiting updated research. I suggest that the Government choose to progress my Bill today and consider the research at Committee stage or later. From my conversations with the Minister, I understand that the Government are determined to hold their current position that they want to see the evidence first. I hope that the Minister will confirm the commitment to make the research public when it is received and to update the House on the Government’s review of the research before the summer recess. I hope she will then set out any legislative action the Government are prepared to take.

I know that the Minister supported these reforms in opposition and is therefore sympathetic to the purpose of the Bill. I am sure she is aware of the money charities in her constituency have benefited from and will continue to benefit from. The Station House Community Association in her constituency notes the following in a project description:

“this grant has supported our running costs—just like everyone else all our bills have increased and we need to cover these costs.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) highlighted, this is an issue we hear everywhere, particularly now that charities are faced with the additional cost of national insurance contributions. Increased fundraising to counterbalance these additional costs will be increasingly vital over the years ahead if charitable projects that we all champion are to survive. The Bill offers a way for the Government to support such charities, and at no cost to the taxpayer. It is a win-win in my view.

Before I finish, I would like to touch on gambling harms. I am a strong believer in reforms to the sector to protect people from problem gambling. Public Health England has said that there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year and that it costs the UK £1.4 billion. Extrapolation of this data by Gambling with Lives suggests that up to 650 gambling-related suicides take place across the UK each year. My party wants to see a compulsory levy on gambling companies to fund research, education, treatment, restrictions on advertising and the establishment of a gambling ombudsman.

The seriousness of addictive, problem gambling cannot be underestimated. I want to outline the steps that the People’s Postcode Lottery takes to tackle it. Players sign up to a monthly subscription to be entered into the draws. The number of monthly subscriptions for a single player is limited, and draws take place throughout the month with results published accordingly. One of the most influential factors in the development of gambling problems is the ability to gamble in real time over and over again. Charity lotteries do not allow real-time gambling, so it takes away the ability to chase a perceived high. Lotteries are widely recognised as being low-risk games compared to other forms of gambling.

To conclude, I feel confident that there are only benefits to the Bill. There are benefits to the charity sector, which is facing unprecedented pressures, to local charities and community projects, and ultimately to all of our constituents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Income tax (charge)

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I absolutely agree. Whenever I have that discussion with farmers, they want to support climate and nature—they want to do the right thing—but they need support to do so.

As I say, the overall funding envelope for farmers is for the Scottish Government to deliver, and I am confident that my Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues in Holyrood will be making the case for them to do so. In his intervention on the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about how the number of farms affected will be small, but the issue is that the Government promised last year not to do anything in relation to agricultural property relief, yet that is what is happening. I am already being contacted by local farmers who fear that this will be the death of their and other families’ farms. It is important that we remember that it is not just about those farmers; it is also about the infrastructure and the wider communities that they support, such as vets and other facilities.

We should not forget tenant farmers, either, because they are some of our most vulnerable. I know that because I worked with some of them prior to the election in relation to the roll-out of universal credit. That system is not fit for purpose for farmers. The Work and Pensions Secretary is no longer in her place, but I will be coming back to her on that issue. We need to ensure that we provide that support.

Until very recently, I wore multiple hats, because I had far fewer colleagues. Now that I have more of them, I have given up my Department for Work and Pensions hat, but I welcome the changes to carer’s allowance. I would like some clarity about the carer support payment in Scotland, which is a devolved benefit that is currently being rolled out. I have not seen it in the notes that I have looked at so far, but perhaps it will become clear in the coming days whether that is included in the block grant that is coming to Scotland, or whether there will be additional consequentials.

To conclude, there are things in this Budget that I absolutely welcome, but, as always, there are unintended consequences, on which I hope the Government will listen to us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Gregor Poynton to make his maiden speech.

Carer’s Allowance

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I declare an interest as I am in the process of joining the board of Fife Carers in an unpaid capacity; it is a privilege to join the organisation. I have worked with unpaid carers throughout the past few years, as constituency MP for North East Fife and through the passage of my private Member’s Bill that became the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. If hon. Members want to learn more widely about carers, they may wish to read my Adjournment debate on the subject, which took place in the first few weeks of this Parliament, where I talked about the need for a strategy on carers to ensure that carers get the cross-cutting governmental and departmental support they need.

I will not touch on the overpayments scandal specifically, but I welcome the announcement of the review after months of campaigning by my dear friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), as well as by the Liberal Democrats, carer charities and journalists. However, I want to raise some points about the carer’s allowance more generally.

I recently asked the Minister responsible for carer’s allowance, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), a written question about a review of how carer’s allowance is working. The response said:

“This government will keep eligibility criteria and processes of Carer’s Allowance under review, to see if it is meeting its objectives.”

That response poses more questions than it provides answers. What are the Government’s objectives for carer’s allowance? Are they ever reviewed? How do they know if they are meeting them? What metrics are being used? What would happen if it was found that the objectives were not being met?

I assume that the objective of carer’s allowance is to keep unpaid carers out of poverty, given the additional barriers they face to working and the additional costs they face through their caring. I also assume that we want to help unpaid carers to stay linked to the workplace, if possible, through part-time work or training. On any assessment, carer’s allowance is failing these objectives. It is a failure when a third of households in receipt of carer’s allowance are classed as food insecure, compared with 10% of households as a whole; when Carers UK research from 2019 found that 600 people per day who were caring were giving up work; and when the rate of poverty among unpaid carers is 50% higher than among non-carers.

One immediate remedy that could be considered, as is set out in our motion, is an increase in carer’s allowance. It may not seem much in the big scheme of things, but during the pandemic we saw the impact of the £20 uplift to universal credit, which delivered an immediate and marked fall in food bank use.

We must do all we can to support people into work and to stay in work, so that they are not relying on carer’s allowance to get by. That point refers to the earnings allowance, which stops carers from working more than 13 hours a week on the minimum wage before losing carer’s allowance. As has already been discussed, there is no taper rate, so as soon as carers earn a penny more, the allowance goes.

Bizarrely, yearly increases to the allowance are not pegged to changes to the national minimum wage. Historically, people could work for 16 hours before they lost carer’s allowance; some of the scandal we have seen could be because people have continued to make those assumptions. We need to take the complexity out of the system. It is completely reasonable for people to assume that if they are earning national minimum wage and receiving carer’s allowance in one financial year, they can continue to do so in the following financial year, as long as they do not increase their hours, but that is not how the system works. The national minimum wage went up by 9.8% this year, but the earnings allowance did not go up at all. That sounds to me like a system set up to make people fail.

Should we not be enabling people to take on more hours and to progress in their jobs if they can? We know that often people—especially those who are below or near the poverty line, as too many unpaid carers are—are scared to risk losing their benefits in case that does not work out. One of the unseen outcomes of the scandal is that people are simply not looking for work or to get into employment because they are scared about the consequences.

Many young carers have high levels of absence from school and there are barriers to them accessing education. Potentially, if we do not help them to claim carer’s allowance when they are entitled to do so, they will never go into work and be able to make a contribution. Fife Young Carers, in my constituency, supports people up to the age of 25. We want to encourage young carers to complete their education so they have the best possible options later.

To return to my cross-cutting strategy, the Department for Work and Pensions may think that it is for the Department for Education to support young people. However, as the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) said, under the under-21 rule, doing a vocational qualification could preclude somebody from receiving carer’s allowance, as T-levels are one of the qualifications that falls into that trap. She is right that we need to think about how we are potentially inhibiting those young people in employment and training from moving forward. We need to ensure that we improve young people’s outcomes.

The Minister will know that employment among unpaid carers is about more than just benefits. We welcome her reference to the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 in her opening remarks and the fact that the Government are looking for that leave to be paid, which has long been a party policy of the Liberal Democrats. However, I do have to express my disappointment that there was no sign of paid leave in the Employment Rights Bill, because there was a real opportunity there to move the matter forward. I would appreciate it if, in her closing remarks, the Minister provided an update on the likely timescales in relation to the Carer’s Leave Act. I am concerned that, since the implementation of the Act, we do not actually know what the take-up of carer’s leave is. I am hearing worrying anecdotes that, six months after the legislation was fully implemented, some companies are still not aware of, or properly recording, carer’s leave. Part of that is because the communication from the then Government was not good enough. Unless somebody was starting a small business, or actively looking for these details, they would not find anything on carer’s leave.

I would like to raise one final point with the Minister. Again, the hon. Member for Salford highlighted this. I am often contacted by constituents who are upset to find that, having retired, they have lost their carer’s allowance—or, in Scotland, the carer support payment—because they are claiming their state pension. We know that female pensioners are more likely to be in poverty because of the working life that they have had—or not had—as a result of raising their families, and that unpaid carers are more likely to be female and older. I would like the Minister to pick up on that point, because too many pensioners are in poverty this winter as well as carrying caring responsibilities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Gill German to make her maiden speech.

Unpaid Carers

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this Adjournment debate, and of course for the work she did before this parliamentary Session on what is now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. One of the reasons why I became involved in politics is that the day before I started my master’s degree, my mum was diagnosed with breast cancer. I studied my degree part-time over two years to look after her and my little sister, who was just five. Looking back, it is clear that I was filling the role of a carer, but I did not identify as one. That is a key point to note if we are to have a carers strategy. A recent Carers Trust survey found that 73% of those who provide or have provided unpaid care do not identify as unpaid carers. Does my hon. Friend agree that a national carers strategy should prioritise the identification of carers across all sectors?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

Order. This is an Adjournment debate and interventions must be super-short.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It demonstrates how prevalent caring is in our society when we have Members who have direct experience of it. Identification of carers, or people identifying themselves as carers, is a key issue that any strategy should address.

The then shadow Minister was right that we need a cross-Government strategy. This is not a new idea, because we have had such strategies before; the last one was drawn up all the way back in 2008, but the problems that unpaid carers face have not gone away. Unpaid carers are significantly more likely to be in poverty than the rest of the population. The most recent data available from the Department for Work and Pensions—the 2023 family resources survey—shows that just under a third of households in receipt of carer’s allowance are food insecure, compared with 10% of households as a whole. That is a huge difference.

To assess food insecurity, the survey asks the respondent whether in the past 30 days: they have has eaten less than they felt they should because of lack of funds; they have been hungry, but not eaten due to lack of funds; or they have lost weight due to not enough money for food. It also asks whether they or someone in their household has gone without eating for an entire day because they lack money for food. Further, the survey found that 13.3% of households in receipt of carer’s allowance—that is just more than one in every eight—had used a food bank in the previous 12 months, compared with just 3% of households overall.

Criminal Law

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election, as well as the other Deputy Speakers, and welcome you to your place.

I would not go so far as to say that I welcome the measures that have been outlined today and what is being proposed, but I and the Liberal Democrats recognise that this is probably the only step that the Government can take to deal with the situation. We are looking to relieve pressure on prisons against a backdrop of concern that the prison population is rising beyond the operational capacity of the prison estate. Indeed, as of July 2024, the prison population in England and Wales was measured as 87,453, whereas operational capacity is 88,864. As Members have highlighted, reoffending rates remain high, with 75% of ex-inmates reoffending within nine years of release, and 39.3% reoffending within the first 12 months. It is estimated that reoffending costs our society more than £18 billion a year.

We should also recognise that violence against prison staff has soared as they cope with these capacity issues; an average of 23 attacks were recorded every day last year across England and Wales. Issues with staff recruitment and retention have persisted, with English prisons running red regimes due to falling below minimum staffing levels at least 22 times in 2023. It is right to recognise that the problem is partly due to the backlog in our criminal courts, which skyrocketed under the previous Conservative Government. I found the official Opposition’s response today quite stunning. We want to work as a constructive Opposition, so that we can help deal with issues around prison overcrowding, so for them to press the Lord Chancellor for answers when they know the answers—they knew them before the last election—is quite something. As of March 2024, remand populations have risen by 84% to a record high of over 16,000 people, accounting for almost 20% of the total prison population. It is quite clear that we need to take action on that issue. Back in November 2023, the previous Administration recognised the issues around prison overcrowding and introduced their own emergency measures, so surely they should recognise today that further measures are necessary.

This is about our criminal justice system as a whole, and trust in our criminal justice system as a whole is at an all-time low. The new Government talk about being a Government of service. I was a police officer for 12 years, and I consider that to be part of the public service I have given. I want to mention the shocking footage from Manchester airport yesterday. As a former police officer, I was deeply disturbed by what I saw. I also want to share my concern and thoughts for the families of the two police officers and the members of the public who were seriously injured in a car accident on the M8 outside Glasgow yesterday.

The issues facing the Lord Chancellor are not limited to England and Wales. Indeed, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has today published a report criticising the Scottish Government’s “glacial pace of change” in tackling overcrowding, suicides and mental health provision in our prisons. Only last month, the Scottish Government were making decisions similar to those being made by this Government in relation to releasing prisoners earlier. Although, as with this Government, there are exceptions to that overall approach, I absolutely understand the concerns of victims in seeing the early release of those who have offended against them, and that is something we must continue to recognise.

Although the Government have outlined that there will not be a sunset clause in the SI, and that they are looking to bring this to an end in 18 months’ time, I would appreciate some clarity from the Lord Chancellor on reporting to this place on the progress being made. This House can estimate whether the situation continues to be an emergency only if we have the data and are aware of the effect of what is being proposed today.

We need to ensure that what the Government are doing is the right thing, but we also need to know what further steps they are taking. We must address the systemic issues in the criminal courts, because these failures are failing victims on convictions in the first place. The Probation Service is also a critical part of this. I want to add that I watched the maiden speech in the other place of the new Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation, and I was encouraged by what I heard. The Liberal Democrats are clear that cutting reoffending must be at the heart of the Government’s plans to end the prison crisis.

We know that prisons are in crisis—they are overcrowded and understaffed, and they are failing to rehabilitate offenders—but in order to prevent and reduce reoffending we need to ensure that we are improving the provision of training, education and work opportunities in prisons. We should be considering a through-the-gate mentorship programme and introducing a plan to improve the rehabilitation of people leaving prison. The Liberal Democrats want to implement a presumption against short sentences of 12 months or less to facilitate that rehabilitation in the community.

As the Minister in the other place recognised yesterday, if we do not have the right conditions in our prisons, we are only making our prisons a place where people learn how to reoffend, rather than preventing it. We need the Probation Service to have the resources it needs. We need to improve and properly fund the supervision of offenders in the community, with far greater co-ordination between the Prison Service, Probation Service providers, the voluntary and private sectors, and local authorities, and that will achieve savings in the high costs of reoffending.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that this is the only option the new Government can take. As I say, I would not go as far as to say that I support what is being proposed, but I recognise on behalf of my party that it is the only option left to the Government at this time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call Andy Slaughter.