Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Richard Fuller and Clive Efford

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am strongly opposed to FOBT machines in betting shops, but my opposition is governed by their impact on addiction and the complex interactions of addiction. The shadow Minister said that that was not part of his motion. Is he motivated at all by the addiction issue and, if he is, why did he not include it in his motion?

[Clive Efford]

I shall explain later my exact position on stakes and prizes, which has not changed for two years. I have consistently made my argument on stakes and prizes and I will give the hon. Gentleman a response when I come to that.