Debates between Clive Efford and John Whittingdale during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Clive Efford and John Whittingdale
Wednesday 8th January 2014

(10 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Whittingdale Portrait Mr Whittingdale
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sorry, but there are strict time limits on speeches, so I want to press on. I have explained why I believe that we need much more research.

The issue of clustering has been raised, too, and it was also recognised by the Select Committee. We recommended, although this was widely misinterpreted, that there should be some flexibility for local authorities so that if it could be shown that a large number of betting shops had opened to get around the limit of four machines in a shop, one solution might be to allow local authorities to permit more machines in individual betting shops precisely to stop more shops opening. We suggested that such flexibility should be applied in an upward rather than a downward direction.

I support localism, but the problem with the Opposition’s motion is that, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) confirmed, the proposal would not be retrospective. It would apply only to new shops, so he would not seek to close existing betting shops on the high street.

Clive Efford Portrait Clive Efford
- Hansard - -

rose—

John Whittingdale Portrait Mr Whittingdale
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to clarify his position.

--- Later in debate ---
Clive Efford Portrait Clive Efford
- Hansard - -

The licensing powers relating to the machines could be retrospective. The number of machines per shop could be reduced.

John Whittingdale Portrait Mr Whittingdale
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

But the hon. Gentleman is not proposing to revoke the existing permissions for shops that are currently on the high street, so what he suggests would not be likely to make any great difference. It would act as an anti-competitive measure that would benefit the people currently operating on the high street and prevent new entrants from coming into the market. Generally, that would be detrimental to consumers.

The Select Committee’s overall conclusion was that before we take action in this area, we need much more research. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who is a member of the Responsible Gambling Trust, pointed out that a thorough study is under way, with a report due in the near future. The Opposition’s motion pre-empts the work that the trust is doing and draws conclusions before we have even seen the results of its research. That is completely the wrong way round, and it is for that reason, in line with what the Select Committee recommended, that I shall support the Government’s amendment and not the Opposition’s motion.