Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Andrew Love and Clive Efford

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he has been lured by briefings from his own side. This motion is not about problem gambling, but about giving local authorities powers to deal with the proliferation of betting shops in our high streets—for planning and economic regeneration reasons, as well as because of concerns about the social impact of fixed odds betting terminals. We are not trying to suggest that passing the motion will solve problem gambling in relation to FOBTs, and the Prime Minister was mistaken today when he answered the Leader of the Opposition’s question on that matter.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

All the evidence that has been cited, especially by the shadow Minister and Labour Members, has put paid to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that we need evidence. We need action, and we need it now.

[Clive Efford]

I will come on to the evidence later in my speech, as what was said about that today really needs to be clarified.

There is widespread opposition to the Government’s position on this matter. Back in 2012, when the Local Government Association published the conclusions of its opinion poll, Sir Merrick Cockell, the chairman of the LGA and former Conservative leader of Kensington and Chelsea, said:

“This opinion poll shows local people want government to give councils the powers to tackle unsightly clusters of sex shops, bookies and takeaways that can blight so many of our high streets. People want action so the places they live, work and shop can be revitalised to reflect how they want them to look and feel.”

The Government talk about localism, but they do not grant the powers even when they are asked to do so by their own colleagues.

I assume that the Government have heard of a character called Boris Johnson. He is the Mayor of London and his office issued a statement on the issue of betting shops, saying:

“They have grown in number with an increased supply of premises such as vacant banks and pubs that do not require planning permission to be used as a betting shop. Betting firms are attracted to busy high streets and town centres with a ready supply of such premises. This has resulted in clustering in less prosperous areas like Hackney, which has 64 betting shops in the borough, 8 in Mare Street alone, and Deptford”—

in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock)—

“with seven betting shops on one street.”

The would-be leader of the Conservatives supports our view. His statement goes on to say:

“The Mayor proposes that betting shop operators wishing to open up a new outlet should be required to apply for planning permission for the chosen premises, which would allow proper consideration to be given to each proposal for a betting shop and its effect on individual centres.”

The Conservative chairman of the LGA and the Tory Mayor for London are both calling for the Government to act. In fact, it is hard to find anyone who supports the Government’s view. Local people want more powers, local government wants more powers and the two highest-ranking Tories in local government want the Government to act, too. Everyone seems to be in agreement except for the Government—well, except for certain parts of the Government.

We have had another Liberal Democrat pledge. The Liberal Democrats have been at it again. One might have thought that they would learn their lesson over university tuition fees, but once the flashbulbs start popping they cannot hold themselves back. They have been photographed saying “Ban the FOBTs” at the Liberal Democrat conference. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for Crime Prevention, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), the Minister for Schools, who is also a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) were all photographed backing anti-FOBT campaigners.

The Liberal Democrats also passed a motion at their conference in September. What did it call for? It said that local councillors should

“be empowered to decide whether or not to give approval to additional gambling venues in their community”

and called for

“Betting shops to be put in a separate planning use class”.

The motion was not from some fringe group but from the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip.

Social Housing in London

Debate between Andrew Love and Clive Efford

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Love]

Absolutely. That is the question that we wish to put to the Minister, and I hope that he will respond. We are not asking, “Have you taken housing benefit from someone who was receiving £100,000?” We would hope that that would be looked at carefully and sensibly, and we hope that if that was suggested, it would be done. What we are asking is why the Government are taking from families on low incomes in enormous housing stress and multiple deprivation their one lifeline of accommodation.

Let me park that issue and move on to the next, which is ever so important—the supply of affordable accommodation in London. As has been said by everyone, it is obvious that we need to increase supply to tackle severe housing stress in London. Let me repeat something that was said earlier, now that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth is back in the Chamber. She was asked how much grant funding had been slashed: it has been slashed by 63%, and how the Government can stand by and say that they can sustain the supply of affordable rented accommodation on the basis of a 63% cut beggars belief. Their argument is that the revenue from higher rents can be used to build houses that would not otherwise be built because grant is not available. The first thing that should be said about that is that the Homes and Communities Agency says that it will provide grant funding towards the building of accommodation, but only where the expectation—that is the word used is that the rents will be close to the maximum 80%. It also says that the tenancy should be of two years or thereabouts. Therefore, it is looking to set conditions.

What will be the impact of those changes? Everyone who has spoken from the Opposition Benches has already mentioned this, but I will say it again for emphasis. According to independent figures produced not by Opposition Members or Labour-dominated local authorities, but by independent commentators, in the year to 2011—before all this comes into place—there has been a 20% drop in housing starts. There is forecast to be a 40% drop between 2010 and 2013, and, as has already been said, because of the uncertainties and the dramatic change that is being brought in by the Government, the whole thing falls off a cliff after 2013. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance that the Government are aware of that problem and will do something about it.

I tried to get figures out of my local authority. It proudly proclaimed that in the years from 2008 to 2011 it would reach the target of building 648 new properties, but it takes a long time to build houses, so they were all built—if I may put it this way—under the administration of the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. It also tells me that a significant reduction is anticipated. It could not quantify that, and it is still early days to be able to do so, but the local authority was secure in the knowledge that the number would be significantly lower. Therefore, what credence can we give to the figures being produced by the Mayor of London, and what are the Government doing to address this problem?

The problem with the slump in the supply of accommodation is the affordable rent model and the complex interaction between “affordable”—however that is defined; we seem to be redefining it continuously—and the introduction of universal credit in 2013. As background to this, in my local authority two thirds of all social tenants are on housing benefit, either partially or fully, so this affects a large proportion of my electorate. Comparisons of social rents with market rents show where the problem arises. In my local authority area, for one-bedroom accommodation it is 40% of the market rate, and for three bedrooms it is 33%. For RSLs, the equivalent figures are 45% and 41%. But on re-lets, where the rent goes up somewhat, it is 58% for one bedroom and 42% for three. It goes down even further for larger accommodation.

I would like to spread a little good news to ease the situation for the Minister. Under the current rules, accommodation in Enfield is affordable, whether one is working or not. As was mentioned earlier, however, under universal credit the figures will be capped at £500 a week. My local authority has worked out that if rents are set at 80%, as is being suggested, an average family, living in three-bedroom accommodation, will pay 46% of their universal credit in rent. They will have only 54% left for all the other necessities of life. If, on the other hand, we use the definition of affordability used by Enfield, and I think by many others, which is that no family should pay more than 30% of their income in rent, and no single person or childless couple should pay more than 35%, on a three-bedroom property, they would pay only 52% of market rent. So there is a very stark choice for everyone.

We do not yet know what the definition of “working” will be; it has been suggested that the cap might not apply to working households, but we do not know what “working” means. Many people in my constituency—and, I suspect, all over London—are in work, out of work, back in work and back out of work. How will it all pan out? I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government recognise the problem that I am trying to convey and have solutions to it.

[Clive Efford]

One of the things that the Government have never understood about their cap on the housing benefit limits in the private rented sector is that many in that sector are in work. They receive benefit because of the high rents in their areas. It is those people who will be shifted out of those areas and probably forced into unemployment.

[Mr Love]

We are waiting to see. As I understand it, there is not complete clarity on how people in work will be dealt with, how “work” will be defined and whether part-time work will be taken into account. I rest my case in the hope that the Minister will respond to some of my concerns.

Finance Bill

Debate between Andrew Love and Clive Efford

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

The point, on which I believe we are all in agreement, is that everyone should pay the tax that they are due to pay. Amendment 11 proposes not that corporation tax should be raised or reduced, but that it should be paid, that the Government ought to take action to ensure that companies that are liable to pay it do so, and that the House should have the role of providing a check and balance to ensure that the Government are carrying out that function.

[Mr Love]

Does my hon. Friend believe that there is a tax gap, as I think all Opposition Members do? Whether the gap is £40 billion, £60 billion or £100 billion, it is very significant, and we ought to turn our minds in this Budget to doing something about it.

[Clive Efford]

I could not agree more. If I were to start listing some of the harsher items in the Budget, such as the £1.9 billion that the Government are trying to take out of housing benefit or the overall £11 billion from the welfare budget, I would risk incurring your wrath, Mr Amess. I would also risk that if I were to point out some of the actions of the previous Government in relation to the medical tests that disability living allowance claimants were forced to go through. The coalition Government, supported by the Liberal Democrats, tell us that things will become even harsher for DLA claimants, so our discussion of minimising avoidance of corporation tax is absolutely relevant.