I am delighted to be here today at the 6th annual GambleAware conference. This event is becoming a pillar in the sector calendar.

It provides us with a fantastic opportunity to reflect on the progress made over the previous year on the important issue of player protection and to outline our visions for the future.

I am extremely honoured to have been appointed by the Prime Minister to a portfolio that includes this vital area of work. I would like to thank the many of you who have given me such a warm welcome already.

My appointment follows an extremely progressive year of policy developments and I would like to outline some of my early reflections of where we are and our commitments moving forward.

Firstly though I must say, I have arrived in this role with a great legacy of work to build on and I would like to pay tribute to my colleague Tracey Crouch on the excellent work she did while she was at DCMS.

But I want to be very clear – the publication of the Gambling Review did not mark the end of government action.

We will act where there is evidence of harm. And we will always keep issues under review, as is our responsibility.

However, alongside government action there has to be accountability for business, to be socially responsible and to protect its consumers.

I strongly believe that we must ensure people can have an open conversation about what responsible gambling looks like in order to identify harmful behaviours.

Gambling related harm affects a diverse cross section of society; high income or low income, older people and younger people.

The places people can gamble are also diverse, so we need to make sure the risks of harm are minimised in all of them.

Now millions of people enjoy gambling responsibly and the Government is committed to supporting a healthy industry. We don’t want to stop people having fun, but we need the right balance between freedom and protections.

The Secretary of State and I want industry to identify behaviour that could put people at risk from harm and intervene early. Socially responsible business is the only kind of business we want to see in this sector.

We have an industry regulator, with the core responsibility to license and regulate gambling, to keep it fair, safe and free of crime. The Secretary of State and I expect to see the Gambling Commission play a key role through the extensive powers it has to set and enforce licence conditions. I urge them to continue to make strides to ensure that there is a strongly regulated and accountable industry. They have our full support in this.

Government wants to see an industry that generates employment and investment. However, there are risks and industry must mitigate those risks with appropriate protections.

Operators are in a unique position to deliver early interventions, before harm occurs, and I want to see rapid progress in this area.

For example, I know there are increasing concerns around people gambling on credit cards and whether this should be permitted.

This is an area we are already looking into in detail to understand the full situation and to consider if action in this space is needed.

We also need to remove stigma around gambling addiction, to make sure people are supported to have the courage to say “I need help”. To change the hidden nature of the addiction to allow a better pathway to support.

It is important that we take a dual approach – focusing on prevention as well as cure. Early intervention, and reducing not just addiction but all gambling related harms to individuals, their families and the wider community.

Supporting action on gambling-related harm is now a priority for Public Health England – this is a major step forward in ensuring we work together to best support those who need it.

I want to touch more on this year’s focus of diversity. Every person is different, so we need to make sure that our services are able to provide the holistic support that people need.

For many years now GambleAware and GamCare have been at the frontline of service provision. GamCare’s National Gambling Helpline provides an essential point of contact for anyone affected by harm, and with its partners it provides a thorough network of counselling services.

The National Problem Gambling Clinic and Gordon Moody Association do vital work in helping those with more complex needs.

So the news that GambleAware funding a new NHS clinic and Problem Gambling Support Team in Leeds is very much welcome. This will make a real difference to people suffering severe gambling problems in the North of England.

I want to see closer links between gambling treatment and other services and I am pleased that my Department is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care.

Public Health England has developed guidance for local authorities on gambling. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is considering treatment guidance on gambling. These are important steps forward.

I am also pleased to see a substantial increase in industry donations this year to help tackle problem gambling. This is vital work to ensure support for those who experience harm.

We want the voluntary system to work – but if it doesn’t we do not rule out other ways of funding support, including a mandatory levy.

The profits of gambling operators aren’t my prime concern. Ensuring problem gamblers have access to the right treatment is.

This is why I am delighted that Public Health England have committed to an evidence review. This is the first step in ensuring we have the research to create a better-supported service.

Research is essential to progress. I want to see a stronger evidence base and I am grateful to GambleAware for their work in this area to date. I want to encourage more academics to work in this very important area.

Together we must better educate people of the risks, of what is healthy and where help is if it is needed. I am encouraged by the progress made by the advertising industry over this past year, and I eagerly await the launch of the multi-million pound responsible advertising campaign which will signpost people to the help that they need.

I would again like to thank GambleAware and all their partners for their work to ensure it has the right impact. Your research next year will also give us greater insight into how advertising messages impact different groups of people, including children and young people. This will be important in shaping policy decisions of the future.

In the Gambling Review we said we wanted to see industry led initiative in this area and this is what we are seeing. I want to thank you for that and encourage all providers to be even more responsible in their advertising.

Protecting children remains paramount. e treat this issue very seriously, and we will monitor the situation carefully. GambleAware’s work with educators and parents will be of great importance here.

I want to support this work by joining with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure we are coordinated in our approach to young people.

Protecting the most vulnerable in society, including children, was at the heart of decisions made in the Gambling Review. My department received more than 7,000 responses from the public, industry, local authorities, academics and charities. We take this issue seriously. So we are listening and we are now implementing good practise and fulfilling these commitments.

I am sure you will all join me in supporting the announcement by the Secretary of State, on 14 November, that the government will bring forward the implementation date for the new stake limit for Fixed Odd Betting Terminals and the Remote Gaming Duty increase to April 2019. The necessary affirmative regulations were laid before Parliament on 15 November.

And the government is aware that gambling-related harm is about more than one product, so we believe that when harmful products are available we must act to protect vulnerable customers.

These machines are an outlier in the world of high-street gambling because of the speed with which it is possible to lose large amounts of money.

It is significant that the gambling industry itself recognises the danger of these machines and accepts the case for a reduction in the maximum stake.

Now the government remains committed to taking action to protect the most vulnerable in society from the harm that these gaming machines can cause and it is now a priority for the gambling industry.

Industry now has clarity on timings for implementation, and we expect them to mitigate the employment impacts and provide support to those who are affected by any job losses.

The ability to gamble online increases the ability to hide gambling from people around you. I want to emphasise the potential of technological solutions to help protect vulnerable people from gambling-related harm.

Customer play data provides opportunities for operators to identify potentially risky gambling behaviour and intervene effectively before harm occurs.

It is vital that online operators use the data they hold on customers to protect people. There are a number of trials underway to identify potentially harmful behaviour. This is a step in the right direction and we will follow them closely.

My colleague the Minister for Digital and I will, next week, be chairing a meeting bringing together Gambling and Technology executives to discuss best practice for protecting customers.

This includes building our understanding of how online advertising is actively targeted away from children as the rules require, as well as understanding the opportunities for using new technology to strengthen player protections online.

As the gambling industry continues to evolve and adopt new technologies, we need to keep pace in terms of regulation and protecting players.

Let me be clear, I expect industry to take action where they believe harm is taking place and I expect them to take steps to minimise it.

In addition, as we do this, the commitment, and knowledge and expertise in this room is crucial if we are to successfully address gambling-related harm as a wider health issue.

We in Government are listening to the issues you raise, and will take strong action where there is evidence to do so.

Today we have a chance to explore some of the barriers that still exist, but I also encourage you to take the opportunity to reflect on the great work being done across the country.

And I look forward to working with you all.

Together we can make a real difference.

Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said:

The UK continues firmly to support the historic nuclear deal with Iran. But the separate continued development of Iran’s missile programme is dangerous and provocative. Its testing of a medium range ballistic missile on 1 December further demonstrates that its activities go beyond what can be justified for national defence.

This latest launch, like several before it, is inconsistent with UN Security Council resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

We have urged the UN Security Council to ensure that Iran cease such activity in defiance of key UNSC measures, and that Iran and all Member States comply fully with the resolutions prohibiting proliferation of missile technology to and from Iran.

We will continue to raise these concerns directly with Iran and to coordinate our responses with partners. Iran must halt these destabilising and provocative acts.

Published 5 December 2018

In my first speech as Secretary of State, I am grateful to be able to close the first day of this historic debate, although at this time of the morning it feels like I may be close to also starting the opening of the second. Let me begin by paying tribute to my predecessors, the Right Honourable Members for Haltemprice and Howden and for Esher and Walton. Both worked tirelessly in their roles as Secretary of State and I would like to thank them for the significant contributions they made over the past two years. Both are hugely respected figures in this House, and I pay tribute to the work that they have done. In perhaps also a rare moment of agreement with the Leader of the Opposition, may I also recognise the longevity and endurance of the Right Honourable Member for Holborn and St Pancras over the past two years. In closing today’s debate, I will of course look to address as many as possible of the points made by colleagues across the House but, before doing so, I want to take a moment to underline just how far we have come.

At the start of this negotiation, the Prime Minister was told that we faced a binary choice between Norway or Canada. She was told that the whole withdrawal agreement would be overseen by the ECJ, that we couldn’t share security capabilities as a third country, that we would be required to give the EU unfair access to our waters and, moreover, that she would not get a deal at all because of the needs of the 27 different member states. And yet we have a deal. The Prime Minister has achieved concessions on all these things, and as my Right Honourable friend said earlier, these are not just negotiating wins; these are real changes which will improve the livelihoods of people up and down the country. They reflect the bespoke deal secured, not the off-the-shelf options that were initially offered.

It is not the British way to put ideological purity above the practicalities of good government. During the negotiations, Her Majesty’s Government did make compromises in order to secure the bigger prize of a deal, which delivers on the referendum result whilst protecting our economic ties with our main market of Europe. I want to confront head-on the notion that there are other options available. What is agreed, as the Right Honourable Member for Basingstoke acknowledged, is the only deal on the table. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good deal.

It recognises our shared history and values, and provides the framework for our future economic and security relationship. It is a deal which will ensure the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK and the nearly 1 million Britons living in the EU have their rights assured and can carry on living as they do now, whilst also benefiting our businesses, and public services like our NHS. It stays true to the wishes of all Members to cooperate closely with the EU on security, and the desire to restore our status as an independent trading nation, as recognised, indeed, on the first page of the political declaration.

I recognise that there are parts of the deal that displease colleagues across the House. But this deal is a choice between the certainty of continued cooperation, or the potentially damaging fracture of no deal, or indeed the instability of a second referendum vote. And to those colleagues who say, “Go back again. Another deal will be offered”, I say that this ignores the objections already voiced within the EU at the concession secured by the Prime Minister, and indeed the likely demand for more from the UK that would be heard in European capitals. Rejecting this deal would create even more uncertainty at a time when we owe it to our constituents to show clarity and conviction.

Let me come to some of the so-called alternatives which some colleagues have raised in the course of the debate. Membership of the EEA would require the free movement of people, the application of EU rules across the vast majority of the UK’s economy, and potentially significant financial contributions – conditions that simply would not deliver on the result of the referendum. The Canada option would mean a significant reduction in our access to each other’s markets compared to that which we currently enjoy, and indeed reduced cooperation on security. And the WTO option, under a no-deal scenario, would mean we lose the crucial implementation period, which allows businesses and citizens time to adapt, we lose the guarantees for UK citizens in the EU, we lose our reputation as a nation which honours its commitments, and we lose our guarantee of negotiations on an ambitious future relationship with the EU.

The only way to guarantee our commitments to prevent a hard border in Ireland at the end of the implementation period is to have a backstop in the withdrawal agreement as an insurance policy. The same will be true for a Norway or – as indeed the Chair of the Exiting the EU Select Committee pointed out – for a Canada deal. There is no possible deal without a legally operative backstop. And we must never forget the importance of ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland are able to continue to live their lives as they do now, without a border.

Turning to a number of the contributions made by colleagues across the House. Firstly, my Right Honourable friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip started his remarks by stating that he was “standing with Tony Blair”. I gently suggest to my colleague that, if he is standing with Mr Blair, he is standing in the wrong place.

The Member for Altrincham and Sale spoke of the importance of the certainty and time to prepare for businesses that the implementation period offers, and the importance of the country now moving forward. And I very much agree with him.

The Member for Derby South voted to trigger Article 50, and noted the importance of respecting the referendum result. And I think when she commented on the fact that the business community wants us to support the deal, I think that she spoke for many businesses up and down the country. The Member for Leeds Central pointed out the limitations of a Canada arrangement, and indeed his concerns at the approach put forward by some colleagues in terms of the WTO rules.

The Member for North Thanet, in a very powerful speech, correctly identified and I think brought his experience as the leader of the UK delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in terms of the idea that a radical reassessment of this deal could be achieved by reopening it was not realistic. And he also spoke of his experience as a Kent MP in terms of the potential disruption that a no-deal scenario would bring.

The Member for Twickenham spoke of his experience on Europe, so he will no doubt recall the Lib Dem leaflets that were the first to propose the in/out referendum before the idea caught on. He is now both saying that we should ignore the result of the referendum, whilst also calling for another referendum. It is a bit like saying that large multinational tech companies are grating and inflame public opinion before taking a job with one of them.

The Member for Beaconsfield said that in all negotiations you move to the mean centre. I agree with him. But in calling for another referendum, and his desire to remain in, I would suggest that that is not the mean centre either of our party, or indeed of the country.

The Member for Belfast North spoke of his concerns on the issue of trust. And I hope that in my new role there will be an opportunity to build that trust in our relationship moving forward. And I very much recognise the experience that he brings in terms of these issues, and his reference back to the December paragraph 50 point that in particular he raised. Can I just pick up one specific issue he raised in terms of the Attorney General’s remarks yesterday. He suggested that the Attorney had said that it was indefinite in respect of the backstop. Just to draw his attention to the fact that the Member for New Forest East, when he questioned the Attorney, asked “Is it possible that the UK could find itself locked in backstop forever, against our will?” The Attorney General’s answer to that was a single word: “No.” But I am very happy to discuss these issues with him further in the days ahead.

The Member for North Shropshire spoke of the forces that hate Brexit and are intent on stopping Brexit. And I hope he will recognise that I am someone that has always supported Brexit and share his desire to see Brexit concluded. But perhaps, unlike him, I fear that the uncertainty of not supporting this deal risks others in the House frustrating the Brexit that he and I both support.

My Right Honourable friend the Member for Basingstoke asked if amendments to the approval motion that seek to insert an end date to the backstop could risk destabilising the only negotiated option on the table. The simple answer to that is yes. An amendment that is incompatible with any of the terms of the deal as drafted would amount to a rejection of the deal as a whole and prevent the Government ratifying the withdrawal agreement.

The Member for Wantage correctly identified the importance of Euratom. I just want to pay tribute to him. It is an issue he speaks with great authority on. I know he has done a huge amount of work on that issue, and I hope where we have landed in the deal reflects many of the contributions that he has made on that point.

The Member for Nottingham South raised the importance of EU citizens to our NHS. As a former Health Minister, I very much agree with that point. I gently point out that there are more non-UK EU nationals working in the NHS today than there were at the time of the referendum. [Interruption.] She says from a sedentary position that that is not the case. That is the record. As the Minister that covered workforce, there are more non-UK EU staff working in our NHS the referendum.

The Member for St Ives spoke of the importance of regaining powers for his local fishing fleet. I think he is absolutely right to highlight that. It is a key aspect of the deal, and again it is an issue I look forward to discussing with him in the days ahead, so we ensure that that reflects his concerns.

The Member for Newcastle upon Tyne spoke of the divisions on Brexit in her constituency and more widely. I very much recognise that. And I think that is what this deal is seeking to do, as the Prime Minister acts in the national interest, to bring the country back together.

In conclusion, it is important that we do not lose sight of what this deal will enable us to deliver—a fair skills-based immigration system; control over our fisheries and our agricultural policies; our own trade policy for the first time for more than four decades; and an end to sending vast sums of money to the EU. In 2016 we had the biggest vote in our democratic history. This deal allows us to deliver on it, rather than the alternatives of division and uncertainty. I urge the House to back this deal.

In place for a year, the pipeline is protecting the River Irwell by feeding polluted water flowing from an old adit – or mine entrance – in Bacup, Lancashire, into a treatment scheme further down the valley.

The original pipeline was replaced last year in a 3 month operation because its deterioration risked up to 80 litres of untreated mine water spilling into the river every second, damaging its ecosystem.

After years of sitting in the river, which flows past Manchester and into the River Mersey, the foundation blocks had moved, bending the pipes and moving them out of alignment.

Contractors for the Coal Authority, JN Bentley Ltd, carried out the work with help from business partners Severn Trent Services.

We also worked closely with Lancashire County Council, the Environment Agency and other stakeholders to ensure the works proceeded safely, with minimum disruption to the public and watercourse.

Ecological surveys were taken to ensure minimal disturbance to the environment.

The entire river was dammed and a series of pumps moved the water past the areas of work, allowing excavators and engineers onto the riverbed.

Sections were then excavated and large, pre-cast, interlocking concrete blocks were fixed into position to take the weight and firmly anchor the pipe.

Chris Crowe, contracts service manager for the Coal Authority, who oversees the operations department, said that the riverbed was also safeguarded against future erosion before it was returned to its original condition:

Careful measurement and surveying works were carried out to ensure that the new works wouldn’t cause a constriction, meaning the river flows as it did previously.

A section of the stone wall had to be removed during the construction, but this was reinstated using the original stones.

With the works occurring so close to a river course, special attention was taken by our contractors to ensure that there were no environmental incidents while they were carried out.

The new foundation blocks have given the facility a clean, leak-free bill of health for the next 20 years, ensuring that the legacy of our mining heritage doesn’t detrimentally affect the environment for future generations.

Coal mining has taken place around Bacup and in the vicinity of the River Irwell for hundreds of years. Old Meadows, or Scarr End as it was also known, was formally recognised as a coal mining concern in 1854. It operated under different owners, right up to its closure under the National Coal Board in 1969. Its peak output of coal was recorded as 30 tons per day.

The adit, on Burnley Road, is one of the most prominent remaining features of the mining activity in the valley. Originally, the mine water went straight into the River Irwell, but is now treated in settlement lagoons and a reed bed before being returned to the river.

23 January, 2019

featuring

Jack Spicer │ PhD Researcher & Associate Lecturer in Criminology │ University of the West of England
Dr Leah Moyle │ Lecturer in Criminology │ Royal Holloway University Lucy Macready │ Community Safety Manager │ Somerset County Council Sammy Odoi │ Managing Director │ Wipers Youth CIC DCI Kerry Paterson │ County Lines Lead │ Avon & Somerset Police

Please see the attached flyer for further information and how to book

PDF, 450KB, 1 page

If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email academy@noms.gsi.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Published 5 December 2018