Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Graham P Jones

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could add that we also have planning frameworks and guidance in place for things such as supermarkets, so why not do the same for betting shops? It seems remarkable that we can pick on supermarkets—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

There are far more pubs and fast-food takeaways per square mile in poorer areas than betting shops. Does the hon. Gentleman also want to restrict them, to protect the people in the poorest communities?

[Graham Jones]

I presume the hon. Gentleman has done an impact survey and a geographical study of the number of alcoholics and whether they live near pubs and of the number of people who may be obese because they live near takeaways, but he did not offer that information, so I presume that he has no argument and is just trying to make an invalid point. [Interruption.] Caring about this issue is caring about the people who go into these bookmakers and get caught by these FOBTs, because there are clusters and these things are attractive. We also have to look at the impact on the viability of our high streets, on communities and on other retailers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me; he shows why this is a modest proposal, as it asks the Secretary of State to make that designation. It is not for the Opposition or for me to prescribe this, but for the Secretary of State to provide that clear guidance to local authorities. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making his point, because he, along with his Conservative colleagues in government, will be able to decide what the density, impact and clustering should be. I hope that he joins me in the Lobby when this is pressed to a vote.

[Philip Davies]

As the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about evidence and facts, can he tell us whether the number of betting shops is going up or down?

[Graham Jones]

The issue is not whether the number of betting shops is going up or down, but whether ordinary people are affected by the consequences of this product. If there are 1 million smokers now but 999,999 tomorrow, the number is going down, but still, as Philip Morris said this week, this is a disease. No matter whether the number is going down or up, the people who are affected should be our primary concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

No, the new clause is all about being against betting shops. It is a solution looking for a problem.

The reason there is concern about fixed odds betting terminals is a chap called Mr Derek Webb. The hon. Member for Hyndburn knows him very well, but for those who do not know him, he made millions—tens of millions and maybe even hundreds of millions—out of making gambling machines. When the Labour party allowed bookmakers in 2005 to introduce fixed odds betting terminals, Mr Derek Webb was so concerned that he wanted his machines to be installed in betting shops, and the bookmakers turned him down—probably the biggest mistake they have ever made in their business. So he has made it his business ever since to make sure that his machines cannot be in betting shops and people have to go to casinos where they are installed. That is basically what all this is about. It is, in effect, a rich man’s grudge match. He has spent millions trying to get these machines out of betting shops for no other reason than vindictiveness; that is the long and short of it. He set up the Campaign for Fairer Gambling on the back of this issue. He has spent millions. He gave half a million pounds to the Lib Dems in the previous Parliament, trying to buy their support, and he has now started giving a great deal of money to the Labour party in the hope of buying some influence with it.

[Graham Jones]

What would be the hon. Gentleman’s comments on Channel 4’s exposés on “Dispatches” and on the BBC’s “Panorama” where people just made up fake news?

[Philip Davies]

That bears no relation to the facts. We all know that people can make a hour-long TV programme and portray anything in any way they want to if they are so determined.

[Philip Davies]

I am going to press on if my hon. Friend does not mind.

These are the facts, whether people like them or not. The average time that somebody spends on a fixed odds betting terminal is about 10 minutes. Their average loss in that time is about £7. These machines make a profit of about £11 an hour; people may say that that is excessive, but I do not believe it is. The rate of problem gambling in the UK has not altered one jot since fixed odds betting terminals were introduced—it is still about 0.6% of the population, as it was before. The biggest problem-gambling charity in the UK, the Gordon Moody Association, was established in 1971, 30-odd years before fixed odds betting terminals were even introduced in the UK. The idea that we will eliminate problem gambling by getting rid of fixed odds betting terminals is for the birds. People who have a gambling addiction will bet on two flies going up a wall if they get half a chance. The answer is to solve their addiction, not just to ban a particular product in a way that will make not one blind bit of difference.

In this House we have an awful lot of upper-class and middle-class people who like to tell working-class people how they should spend their money and how they should not spend their money.

[Graham Jones]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

Well, if the cap fits—I give way the hon. Gentleman.

[Graham Jones]

I came here from a factory where I was on £10 an hour. I went straight from the factory into Parliament. I am not one of the middle-class or upper-class people the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Unlike him, I am one of the normal working-class people.

[Philip Davies]

It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman has become so detached from his roots, along with the rest of his party. Perhaps Labour would not be in such a mess if it stuck a bit more closely to its working-class roots.

I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) talk about all those people in West Dorset going from payday loan companies into betting shops. It is a while since I have been in West Dorset, but it has clearly changed an awful lot since the last time I was there.

Use of the Chamber (Youth Parliament)

Debate between Philip Davies and Graham P Jones

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me about the whipping advice. I shall seek him out more often. It may well pay dividends for everybody to know that I know the whipping arrangements.

I do not think it is right to say that the only way we can inspire people to get involved in politics is to allow them to sit in here and have a debate. When I was first elected to Parliament in 2005, it was an absolute honour and privilege—[Interruption.] It absolutely still is a privilege, but to be able to sit on these Benches for the first time was an absolute privilege and an honour, and I thought it was very special.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I would like to finish, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Graham Jones]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could finish with this thought: did he canvass the young people of Shipley and ask them for their views before he came here to represent them in this debate?

[Philip Davies]

I know that the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world does not bother with elections, but Shipley, in common with most other places, had an election a few weeks ago. It obviously bypassed the hon. Gentleman, who clearly does not have to worry about trifling matters like elections. What was put to the test in our election was whether I or somebody else should represent the people of Shipley in this House. I can report—I do not think I would be here otherwise—that 50% of the people of the Shipley constituency voted for me, and I am therefore exercising my democratic right to represent them.

[Graham Jones]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

Now that the hon. Gentleman has learned what elections are all about, I will give way to him again.

[Graham Jones]

My question was whether the hon. Gentleman had asked the young people in his constituency. The voting age is 18 and I would like it to be 16, but the hon. Gentleman voted against that.

[Philip Davies]

The young people of Shipley have different views on different issues. Has the hon. Gentleman canvassed the opinion of every 16-year-old in his constituency? I suspect not, because how would he identify every 16-year-old in his constituency in order to be able to canvass them? In fact, I suspect I probably canvass more people in Shipley than he has in his constituency over the years.

[Graham Jones]

For the record, I believe that my constituency is one of the most canvassed in the country.

[Philip Davies]

In which case, it is a shame the hon. Gentleman did not realise there was an election on which to canvass a few weeks ago. I am here to represent my constituents in Parliament. If they want someone else to represent them, they know exactly what they need to do at an election and I will always respect their decision.

I thought it was a great privilege to sit here for the first time after I was elected and I do not want young people to feel blasé about the fact that they have already been here and say, “I don’t need to stand for Parliament, because I’ve already sat there—been there, seen it, done it.” It should be something that people who want to get involved in politics aspire to do: they should aspire to come to sit on these Benches and feel as proud as I did when I was first elected in 2005. I fear that this is gesture politics of the worst kind. It is motherhood and apple pie guff. I am opposed to it and I will always remain opposed to having an exemption for one single group.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (Lancashire)

Debate between Philip Davies and Graham P Jones

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Graham Jones]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. We have to look at all the evidence, as well as adopting the precautionary principle. We also have to take into account all the other surveys that contrast with that figure and show that these machines are highly addictive. The gambling prevalence survey shows that and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, it was ended by his Government; the last one was done in 2010, so the lack of information is partly down to the Government. I know that Government Members signed early-day motion 1030 last year, complaining about the Government’s withdrawal of the survey, which would have provided an evidential base. It is important that we look at all the evidence and at how we arrive at the evidence, as well as using intelligence. We have to look forward, not just backwards.

I return to my story about the gambling addict covered in the Lancashire Telegraph. He revealed how he squanders hundreds of pounds in benefits on virtual roulette machines. The paper reported:

“Nearly every penny of Michael Waring’s benefits—a total of £845 a month—is lost at betting shops.”

Mr Waring said:

“When the machines came out I didn’t even know what roulette was. After three months playing them I was hooked. I took my wages into the bookies. I was convinced I could win and put all my money into a machine. I lost. When I left, the fresh air hit me and my guts were wrenching.”

He resorted to attacking a FOBT during a spree in which he again lost all his money after several trips to a cash machine. He said:

“I punched the machine several times, threw it onto the floor and left.”

My other local newspaper, the Accrington Observer, has also covered the issue of FOBTs and was concerned at the £51 million staked in 2013 on the 48 FOBT machines in Hyndburn. That is almost £l million a machine, which is a considerable amount.

I am not anti-gambling. I occasionally bet on horses and football. There is an element of judgment to such gambling. Odds rise and fall, and there is a significant period between the placing of such a bet and the conclusion of the event. FOBTs, however, are not so much gambling as gaming. As the name implies, there are fixed odds and an algorithm in the game designed to ensure that the player loses. The laws in the UK are weak. When Newham council defended its decision to oppose the opening of a Paddy Power bookmakers on the basis that FOBTs are gaming and not gambling, and so require a separate licence, the judge found with the bookmaker. That is wrong and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is right to call for a separate use class.

The Gambling Act 2005, which legitimised FOBTs, has three objectives: gambling must be fair and open, it must not be associated with crime or disorder and it must not harm young or vulnerable people. It is clear that FOBTs are in breach of all three. The speed of play is more than five times faster than in a casino, so players will lose their cash much quicker than if they were playing live roulette. FOBTs also increase the accessibility of hard gambling, at up to £100 a spin, to a demographic that cannot afford to play casino games.

Last year, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling commissioned 2CV to poll more than 500 betting shop customers. It found that the average bet per spin was £17, and the poorest and those unemployed were gambling £19 a spin. It also found that the average amount of cash going into the machines was £55, and one in five was putting in more than £100 a time. That poll was taken in Newham, one of the most economically deprived boroughs in London, and provides an insight into why bookmakers are targeting the poorest areas. The results of that survey are not dissimilar to those that would be found in Lancashire, particularly the poorer parts of the county. There are 48 FOBTs in Hyndburn, but in the affluent Ribble valley—an area with twice the average income and many times more wealthy people—there are just 18. In Blackburn, there are 73 FOBTs, while in affluent Wyre there are just 29. There are 157 FOBTs in Blackpool.

As a demographic, poorer people are more likely to start gambling than any other, but they are the demographic that can least afford to lose, and the bookmakers aggressively market the most addictive gambling product to them. Customers will often go into betting shops in Lancashire to bet on racing or sports, only to be offered £20 free credit or the opportunity to participate in a tournament on the FOBTs, designed to get them hooked. 2CV’s polling found that nearly nine out of 10 FOBT users described the machines as addictive, more than two thirds had chased their losses, more than three quarters had spent more than they had planned to and 62% had gambled until all their money was gone.

That illustrates a problem with this particular gambling product, and empirical evidence based on the two most recent British gambling prevalence surveys shows that FOBTs are the most addictive form of gambling. Secondary research based on the 2007 British gambling prevalence survey found FOBTs to have a stronger association with problem gambling than any other gambling activity. Professor Jim Orford’s research, based on the 2010 British gambling prevalence survey, found that nearly a quarter of the profits from FOBTs came from people with gambling problems—and that stretches to 40% if at-risk gamblers are included.

The Government want to wait for research commissioned by the Responsible Gambling Trust before they restrict FOBTs, but NatCen, which has been commissioned to carry out the research, has said that the data alone will not provide conclusions that are an adequate basis for policy. The data will tell us what but not why, and it is the why that the Government are interested in.

Although there is enough research to justify a precautionary reduction in the maximum stake on the machines, the research that the Government are waiting for will tell them nothing about player behaviour. That raises questions about why the bookmakers did not give NatCen access to their premises when it was carrying out observational research into gaming machines from 2011 until last year or why the bookmakers have refused to donate a live terminal, with live data, to Cambridge university for research into player interaction.

It is not just addiction that is caused by FOBTs. Landman Economics analysed the impact of FOBTs, and concluded, because the machines were a non-labour-intensive form of consumer spending, that more jobs would be created in the wider economy if the money spent on them was spent elsewhere. Based on historical growth, losses on FOBTs in Hyndburn are predicted by Landman Economics to reach £4 million by 2023, putting 280 jobs at risk. Staff face dangerous working conditions with shifts to single staffing and threats of violence. The Guardian reported:

“According to an internal memo seen by Guardian Money, William Hill instructs staff not to contact the police when customers not already known to staff damage the machines…‘to reduce the number of reports to police’.”

One staff member in my constituency contacted me worried for her safety in an industry that employs a considerable number of untrained female staff in isolation. She told me that every night she had, on her own, to carry thousands of pounds in cash to the bank. She was gravely concerned about her safety. Betfred is now linking staff pay to FOBT turnover in a take-it-or-resign deal.

There is also a negative impact in tourist areas such as Blackpool. Last year, £168 million was wagered on the machines in Blackpool, with the bookmakers making more than £5 million in profit. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) has said:

“I do not believe that the proliferation of high-street gambling in these tourist destinations is good for tourism.”

The effect has as much to do with the impact on other sectors as on the strong association with crime. The businesses involved are national chains with national profits, providing few jobs and draining tourist spending in those tourist destinations.

There is no requirement for age verification before people play on FOBTs, and no checks on where cash has come from, so the machines are used by criminals for money laundering. An investigation by The Guardian revealed that drug dealers will load cash into the machine, play with minimal risk—for example, they will put £48 on red, £48 on black and £4 on zero—and then cash out after a few spins. That “cleans” the money, as they can ask for a receipt and if they are stopped by the police they can say they won it at the bookies. Ladbrokes is now under investigation by the Gambling Commission with respect to its money laundering procedures, and Coral has recently been rebuked by the regulator for allowing £900,000 to be laundered through its machines by a drug dealer. It rewarded the perpetrator with a VIP trip to the races, as it saw him as a valued customer.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways and say that the machines are so bad that people lose a lot of money in no time, but that they also give punters such a high return that they are used for money laundering. Which one is it? Do people lose money hand over fist on the machines, or do they get such a big rate of return that it is worth laundering money through them? It cannot be both.

[Graham Jones]

I am grateful for that intervention, because what I said is correct. There is a rate of return—a diminishing one. Those who want to launder money play for a short time and put as much in as they can, minimising the diminishing rate of return, but addicts, as I said earlier, play till all their money is gone. The diminishing return accumulates to the point where, as Michael in Blackburn said, there is nothing left. The diminishing rate of return is relevant when people are trying to clean money. Addicts will play to the end.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Philip Davies and Graham P Jones

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman says that, but many of his constituents work in them, of course, and many of his constituents enjoy going into them. If they did not enjoy going into them, they would not be open.

It is true that more bookmakers have moved on to the high street in recent years, but their overall number has not gone up; instead they have moved from the side streets owing to lower rents because of the recession largely caused by the Labour party, and they will probably move back on to the side streets when the economy recovers and rents on the high street go back up.

Anyway, where are the legions of retailers wanting to open up on the high street in place of bookmakers? It is not a decision between having Next on the high street or William Hill or having M&S on the high street or Paddy Power. It is a choice between having Ladbrokes on the high street or a boarded-up shop.

[Graham Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I cannot give way again as I have taken the two interventions allowed.

People ask for a demand test and there is a demand test: it is called a customer demand test, which is the ultimate demand test.

The second myth is that bookmakers target poorer areas. There are two bookmakers per square mile in the most deprived areas. That compares with nine pubs and 11 takeaways. If the Opposition are saying that bookmakers are targeting the poorest people in society, what do they have to say about pubs and takeaways targeting those people? Do we hear anything about that? We do not, because this is not about the poorest in society being targeted; it is about people who are anti-gambling and anti-bookmaker. Bookmakers are not targeting poorer areas. This is about middle-class people being patronising towards working-class people by telling them that they know best how they should spend their money.

The third myth is that the machines are used by the poorest people. Again, that is untrue. The health survey published in recent months shows that gambling prevalence was highest in the top quintiles of household income, with 6% of people in the highest income quintile playing FOBTs, compared with 4% in the lowest quintile. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East said that he did not want surveys to be linked to the gambling industry, but this is the health survey, which has nothing to do with the gambling industry. That survey makes it clear that richer people are much more likely than poorer people to play FOBTs.

Only two gambling activities in that health survey were engaged in more by poorer people than by richer people. They were scratch cards and bingo. Poorer people spend more on scratch cards and bingo than do the richest people. What are the Opposition saying about scratch cards and bingo? Nothing, because they do not think that it would be popular to say anything about them. This is just a case of crocodile tears.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Graham P Jones

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that with ticket touting it is acceptable to charge an added value or premium, but that income and revenue belongs to the artist, performer or whomever the person buying the tickets has paid to see. Does he not agree that that is denying them an income?

[Philip Davies]

rose—

Localism Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Graham P Jones

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones]

No.

The Minister of State had the opportunity before to say what he has said this evening, but there are real issues—[Interruption.] That is fine, but it is the Government who are putting forward their new clause, which now has no teeth.

In conclusion—because I was wrapping up—the LGA says that the proposal will be problematic to enforce. What are the Government enforcing? How can local government increase recycling rates for residents? If action is to be taken, it will hit some of the poorest communities that have higher recycling rates, not some of the wealthiest ones, and the same goes for landfill taxes. I appreciate Ministers’ comments, but as far as I am concerned, I am delighted that all the teeth have been taken out of this proposal.

[Philip Davies]

I certainly hope that the Minister will give me as helpful a response as he gave the previous speaker when he considers my amendments.

My new clause 8 would allow local authorities to vary Sunday trading hours in their areas. As hon. Members will know, under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, large shops over 280 square metres may open for only six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays, excluding Easter Sunday, when they must remain closed. I think that this is rather anachronistic. Sunday trading is increasingly popular. I have no interest to declare, but I do have some experience to declare, as somebody who worked for Asda for 13 years. In my time there, Sunday trading hours were the busiest hours of the trading week. Contrary to common belief, Sunday trading hours were also the most popular hours that members of staff wished to work, because for many people Sunday was one of the few days on which they could do additional hours, as they had other people at home looking after their children and so on. If people want to shop on a Sunday or work for certain hours, I do not really see what business the Government have telling them what hours they can do.

Members may be aware that Scotland has a different regime. Sunday trading is fully deregulated in Scotland, although, under the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, workers have the right to refuse to work on Sundays. I am not aware that the whole world has collapsed in Scotland as a result of deregulating Sunday trading hours. In fact, my experience is that it has proved to be incredibly popular with both customers and workers alike. I would like workers and shoppers in England and Wales to have exactly the same rights to shop or work in shops at a time of their choosing as people in Scotland have.

My new clause 8 would not give local authorities the opportunity simply to extend Sunday trading hours, because I believe in true localism. My new clause also offers local authorities the opportunity to restrict Sunday trading hours further, if they so wish. If we believe that decisions should be taken locally, we should give local authorities the widest possible ability to make decisions to suit their areas. In areas that need extra regeneration, the opportunity to open for extra hours on a Sunday might be welcome, as it may benefit the local authorities in such areas. I do not see why the Government should stand in those authorities’ way if they believe that to be an important part of their regeneration strategy. Other local authorities may wish to restrict Sunday trading hours. I would not advise them to do so—I do not think it would be very popular—but that would be up to them, as democratically elected local authorities. So I hope that the Minister will explain whether he agrees with my proposed extension of the principle of localism. If he does not agree, will he tell me what on earth his objection is to extending a right to the people of England that the people of Scotland already have?