Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Clive Efford and Mike Hancock

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

I repeat: today’s motion is not about stakes and prizes. It is about empowering local authorities, which have called for powers to deal with a wide range of issues that go beyond gambling. It is about economic regeneration; it is about economic vitality and diversity in town centres; it is about the concern about the effect that the clustering of betting shops has on the character of town centres. I will deal with the research, and I will come on to it very soon if hon. Members are patient.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the motion allows local authorities to deal with the current situation in which there are far too many of these shops? Why is the motion not about the odds and the stakes, because that is the important issue?

[Clive Efford]

I will come on to the issue of stakes and prizes, but it is complex and it will take a great deal of time to explain. The motion calls for extra licensing powers and a change in the law. I accept that it would be difficult to introduce retrospective legislation to go back and take licences for those machines away from betting shops, but that is what is included in the motion. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is calling for, he can vote with us.

Perhaps the most damning fact is the Government’s claim that councils have powers to stop the clustering of betting shops. Again in her comments on today’s debate, the shadow Minister—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Minister—I am getting ahead of myself and am about 18 months too early—said:

“Councils already have planning powers to tackle the proliferation of betting shops, as well as licensing powers to tackle individual premises causing problems and we have already acted to ensure the industry puts in place the types of player protection measures that Labour are now, at long last, calling for.”

If that is the case, why do councils such as Newham have to go to court to try to stop more betting shops opening in their area? Why are so many local councils passing motions calling for more powers?

Sir Robin Wales, responding to the Minister’s comments yesterday, said:

“Current legislation leaves councils effectively powerless in their ability to tackle the clustering of betting outlets, which causes immeasurable harm to local communities and the high street. The only planning power available to councils (an Article 4 direction) is unwieldy and slow, and some betting shops don’t even require planning permission to open.”

In 2004, Sir Merrick Cockell described article 4 directions as “unwieldy and bureaucratic”. The Local Government Association’s view of article 4 powers in the same year was equally negative:

“Article 4 directions are costly and complex to use. Local authorities need to give notice of the restrictions coming into effect for a year to avoid being at risk of paying compensation. This is an obvious disincentive to the widespread use of Article 4 directions by local planning authorities, which undermines the effectiveness of this measure. Article 4 directions can also only be used across a whole use class—meaning they cannot even be used when a bank becomes a betting shop.”