You are here: Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Daily Hansard


4 Jun 2007 : Column 875

House of Lords

Monday, 4 June 2007.

The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Death of a Member

The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, it is with very great regret that I have to inform the House of the death of Lord Renton on 24 May. On behalf of the whole House I extend our condolences to his family and friends.

Gambling: Betting Offices

2.36 pm

Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there are a number of new provisions under the Gambling Act 2005 that will effectively regulate the licensing of betting shops. In issuing betting shop licences, all licensing authorities must have regard to the three objectives of the Act, one of which is the protection of children and the vulnerable. The Act provides for new applicants for betting shop licences to make public their intentions. Local people will also have the opportunity to raise concerns about applications with their licensing authority.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full Answer. Does he agree that the situation needs very careful watching? It seems unfair to criticise the bookmakers by implication after they have had such a bad weekend, but the turnover for horse racing and dog racing has fallen considerably and the main contributor to betting shop profits is what are misleadingly called “fixed-odds betting terminals”, known in the trade as FOBTs. They are casino betting machines, and every betting office has four of them—the Government have seen fit to allow them to do that. They are quite separate from all other gambling in casinos, but they are casino machines. What plans are there to monitor the social impact of these machines and the profits they yield in very poor areas, which is mostly where betting shops operate with regular customers?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, who recognises that bookmakers have had a sorry weekend with two derby wins by the same jockey. I must report to the House that the number of betting shops has been in decline in recent years. We do not know whether there has been a very recent increase, for the simple reason that the new licensing system under the Act did not come into operation until 21 May. The Gambling Commission therefore cannot begin its process of both counting and regulating the development of bookmakers and the issues the noble Viscount refers to, but it is charged with exactly that responsibility, which we expect it to fulfil.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what is the position on casino machines? There has been a major problem in Australia, particularly on licensed premises selling alcohol, which have a number of these machines. The Government there are trying to limit them, but everyone is claiming that they have the right to the machine and can take them on to their shop when they move. The machines develop an identity of their own which is quite independent of where they seem to have been situated originally. Is any similar situation likely to arise here?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government and Parliament had the advantage of some knowledge of the Australian experience as we considered the Bill that became the Gambling Act 2005. There are strict regulations with regard to numbers of machines according to which premises have applied for the licence. We would not wish to see those machines in Australia, which are referred to as pokies, spread in such an unlimited way, and the Gambling Act meets the requirements of regulation.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is not the real problem casinos as distinct from betting shops?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Question is about betting shops, but in considering the casino policy and the proposals with regard to small, large and regional casinos, the Government were concerned to specify the number of machines in each category that could be operated by the licensee.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the use of FOBTs effectively turns bookmakers into mini-casinos. The Minister referred to the review and to the duty of the Gambling Commission in the future. When does he anticipate that the commission will review the use of FOBTs for the first time? Will that review also look at jackpot machines, category A machines and many of the other machines that were debated during proceedings on the Gambling Bill and gave rise to many different and conflicting views about whether more should be allowed?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is the responsibility of the Gambling Commission. The House will wish to be fair to betting shops, which is what the Question is about. They began to be licensed under the legislation on 21 May, only a short while ago; consequently, the Gambling Commission is not in a position to produce detailed statistics and an analysis of how it is tackling the problem. However, it is the commission’s responsibility to do so in due course.

Lord Luke: My Lords, we on these Benches are very concerned about the impact on vulnerable groups of the Government’s gambling liberalisation. What is the Minister’s reaction to the enormous increase in the number of people using GamCare, the online advice service, in the past few years?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Opposition also expressed their great concern about the Licensing Act 2003 causing enormous chaos in the nation. That has not come to pass. Therefore, why should we think that the Gambling Act will have a similar effect to the one they described then? We have not seen an enormous increase in drinking habits since the passing of the Licensing Act; we have, however, seen the ability to control the development of licensing under the legislation. That applies to gambling as well. Of course we are concerned about online betting. It is one of the reasons why the Gambling Act needed to come into force, as we were aware that this new form of betting did not come under the former legislation.

Office for National Statistics: Relocation

2.45 pm

Lord Newby asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, many of the key outputs of the Office for National Statistics have already been relocated from London without loss of quality. The work is moving to established offices in Newport and Titchfield, which already have a broad base of statistical skills. Risk-management strategies, which are kept under constant review, are in place to relocate the work without adversely affecting quality.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the National Statistician told the Treasury Select Committee only last week that only 10 to 15 per cent of qualified statistical staff now in London are prepared to go to Newport, and that the Bank of England has warned that the current plans will have a severe impact on a range of statistics? Will the Government now review the pace of the relocation to ensure that no economic statistics are jeopardised?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that significant economic statistics are not jeopardised is of paramount importance. I accept the noble Lord’s point that the National Statistician said that only 10 to 15 per cent of staff had relocated, but it was always anticipated that there would be new appointments to these positions. More people are employed in national statistics in Newport than in London, so the move has already progressed significantly.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that civil servants always oppose dispersal policy as a matter of course and that they are invariably wrong?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is certainly a general recognition in the country of the wisdom of seeking to spread jobs and economic prosperity more widely than the overheated south-east, but the moment the Government come along with a strategy for relocating jobs within their own service, there are many critics to be found.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Minister accepted a moment ago that the National Statistician had told the Treasury Select Committee that 10 to 15 per cent of staff “had relocated”. In fact, she told the committee that she expected only 10 to 15 per cent of staff to relocate, which the Financial Times correctly interpreted as meaning that some 700 or 800 staff of the ONS would not relocate and it would have to recruit new staff at Newport. Is the Minister not being unduly complacent about what seems to be developing into quite a serious situation for the ONS?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, no one has suggested that the relocation of the work would proceed without any difficulty at all. That is why it is being carefully phased. The noble Lord will know that the most significant posts are being held until 2010 to maximise opportunities either for people at a very senior level to move or for their posts to be advertised and replacements found. The priority must certainly be the protection of the quality of the service for which the Office for National Statistics is renowned, while achieving that other objective which the House would recognise as welcome; namely, that some functions of the Treasury—this department is within the Treasury—should be located outside London.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, did my noble friend the Minister see the article in the Financial Times this morning by Karen Dunnell, the National Statistician, in which she gave a pretty comprehensive and robust account of how the move is going? She made the point, among others, that there are now more people in Newport. I found the article pretty convincing. Does the Minister agree with me?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is certainly unlikely that an organ such as the Financial Times would publish an article without it having real substance, particularly given its source and the high repute of the National Statistician. She and her office enjoy a high reputation. Therefore, I commend to all her analysis of the process of relocation, because I, too, found it convincing.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, if the Minister has such a high opinion of the Financial Times, will he reread rather more carefully the article about two weeks ago that expressed very serious concerns about the relocation, including those from the staff? The Minister mentioned risk-management strategy. Given that the great majority of the experts who run the cost of living statistics are not prepared to go to Newport, what exactly is the strategy to ensure that Britain’s cost of living statistics are not seriously damaged?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has identified a very important range of statistics whose quality we need to guarantee. When I emphasise risk assessment, what is in place is a balance between the speed with which relocation can take place and the necessary expertise being available to the office to guarantee the statistics that the noble Lord has identified. The ONS is responsible for a range of other statistics, which other Members of this House would regard as equally significant.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I was pleased to hear the Minister praising the coverage of the Financial Times, because last week it also reported that the Statistics Commission, which was worried about the impact of resources, including relocation, on the quality of statistics, had requested budget information from the ONS to evaluate the impact of these changes. The FT reported that that was denied. Why?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, when I praised the Financial Times, I praised an organ that provides a forum for a very important debate in this area. None of us would doubt that the moving of such a significant office from London is a matter of very great interest among all concerned with the quality of our statistics and must be managed carefully. That is why the Financial Times published an article that identified some of the challenges laid before the office in moving. As we heard from my noble friend earlier, today the Financial Times gave the opportunity to the chief statistician to indicate how she thought that the process was going—and she reported favourably in those terms.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, some years ago there was a highly successful relocation of the Royal Mint from the Tower of London to Llantrisant in south Wales, which can serve as a model. Has there been a failure to sell the attractions of Newport, with the Usk and Wye valleys and cheaper house prices than London?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Newport can advertise its own virtues. In addition to the city itself, which has many advantages not least in terms of its house prices in comparison to those of the south-east, Newport is located in a supremely attractive area at the southern end of the Wye valley. Of course, many people would find that attractive.

Olympic Games 2012: Allotments

2.52 pm

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games represent a tremendous opportunity for London and the nation, regenerating one of the most deprived areas of the country. The planning and development of the Olympic Park aims not only to deliver the best Olympic Games and Paralympic Games ever but to ensure that they are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable, leaving a lasting legacy for the Lower Lea Valley and the UK as a whole.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but why has his department been unable to answer my simple Written Question of 26 April asking what the statutory duties were of the London Development Agency and the local authority to the allotment holders on the Olympic site? Is he aware how historic the Manor Garden allotments are? They were given before the First World War by a friend of Churchill’s to the very people to whom the Minister refers—the people who dwell in the East End—so they could grow their own food. Could those same allotments not be a showcase for Olympic visitors? After all, what is more British than an allotment full of runner beans, apple trees and dahlias? Does he really think that the best solution is to allow them to be bulldozed?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to chide me for the delay in providing an Answer to her Question. I assure the House that the Answer is imminent and I think would have been delivered last week had there not been a parliamentary recess. I accept her chiding on that. On the general point, the movement of these allotment holders is to be regretted, but it is forced on us by the nature of the planning of facilities in the Olympic Park. However, we have set out to provide temporary locations for the allotments elsewhere in the mean time, and we will restore the right of all allotment holders to have an allotment in the Olympic Park when it is completed.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the horticulture, timber and forestry industries have had meaningful discussions with the Olympic authorities in London to ensure that there are a lot of exciting green aspects to the 2012 Olympics, including an Olympic forest and a green area which will leave a green legacy for the east of London? I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that contribution, which comes with his great knowledge on these issues. We have stated all along that a sustainable environmental legacy is a crucial part of the Olympic legacy. He has identified the amount of work that needs to be done and the amount of consultation that is necessary with interested bodies to achieve the objectives to which we all subscribe.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, on 1 May, I asked a Question about whether there was to be any form of roof structure to protect the public from the rain in the stadium? At that point he said that there was to be a meeting in three weeks’ time, when all matters would be reviewed. Can he now inform me whether there is to be some form of roof structure to prevent the British public being totally soaked?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not the British public—we hope that it will be a worldwide audience for the Olympic Games, and they all need protection. I cannot give the noble Lord details now, but he is right that the issue of a stadium roof is of considerable importance. I can assure him that it was never intended that there should be no protection at all from the weather in the stadium. As I recall from last time, he was not too sure that the people who deserved to be protected were necessarily the ones who were likely to get the cover.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, how many allotment holders are affected by the temporary move and how long will it last?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the period will last until the Olympic Park is free of its commitment to the Games in 2012, so it will be more than four years before the allotments come back. I think that there are just over 70 allotment holders.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that when the allotment holders are obliged to move, it will not be in, say, June, half way through the vegetable growing season, but at a more suitable time?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my experience of all allotment holders, and certainly of the group involved in this issue, is that they can well look after their own interests. One of my inhibitions about replying now is that there is currently a court case in which the allotment holders are taking the department to court. The House can be reassured that their interests are being looked after.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, to offer the Minister some small assistance, is he aware that Prince Albert intervened in the case of the vegetable gardens on what is now Kennington Oval and prevented them being turned into houses? It does not seem to have done Kennington Oval much harm.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, neither Kennington Oval nor the reputation of Prince Albert.

Iraq: HMS “Cornwall” Inquiries

2.59 pm

Lord Craig of Radley asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Darren Bonner, Corporal Mike Gilyeat and Guardsman Daniel Probyn, who were killed during operations in Afghanistan over the Recess.

Lieutenant-General Fulton has completed his report on the operational issues and has presented it to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who is considering it. The review into media access being led by Tony Hall is due to be completed shortly, and I expect an announcement to be made to Parliament on both later this month.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I add my condolences to the families of the soldiers whom he mentioned.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page