David Burrowes has responded to my follow-up email by providing quotes to defend his record on the subject of Fixed-Odds Betting Terminals. However, he has again completely ignored my main point:
I would like to finish by again asking you to think about the damaging effects of these machines on individuals and society and consider joining with your parliamentary colleagues to campaign for a reduction in the maximum stakes or for a complete ban.
The point he makes about the problem being the consequence of legislation brought in by the last Labour government is correct. But I am not asking him to discuss the past, but rather to take steps now to bring in some meaningful restrictions on these machines, for which I can see no legitimate purpose.
David Burrowes' response was as follows:
Thank you for your further email. I note the intervention of Mr Nix who has misapplied those votes in the previous Parliament. I have been one of the most vocal Conservative advocates of regulation and licensing of FOBTs and will continue to be so in this Parliament. Below are examples from my website of my involvement in the issue in the last Parliament which set the context to previous votes:
Speaking during a debate on fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs), David Burrowes MP raised concerns about the clustering of betting shops in Green Lanes and called for greater local powers in relation to planning and licensing.
Mr Burrowes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping his promise. A briefing from the Salvation Army says that after the Gambling Act 2005 came into force, the number of gambling addicts increased by more than 50% between 2007 and 2010—a rise of 115,000 people. What—or, more pertinently, who—is responsible for that?
Clive Efford: We could have a debate about that question itself, because there are many forms of gambling due to which people become addicts, especially given the rise in online gambling, which has grown into a £2 billion industry over the past few years. It is therefore difficult to extrapolate who is responsible. However, we should do the appropriate research into the impact of FOBTs on problem gambling.
|
Hansard
Mr Burrowes went on to ask:
Mr Burrowes: I have been similarly reassured by the Minister’s response. My hon. Friend shares my concern—I am sure he will discuss clustering in Peterborough, which is similar to the clustering of betting shops in Green Lanes in my constituency—that there should be greater local powers. My local area wants to set up a neighbourhood plan that involves the high street. Does he think that in the review and the response the promise to leave no stone unturned should include greater powers in relation to planning and licensing?
Mr Jackson: Absolutely. That is an integral part of any remedial powers that the Government take to deal with the serious and legitimate concerns of many of my constituents.
|
Hansard
During the debate in the Commons last Wednesday the Government pledged to take action to protect problem gamblers in the Spring following a review of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. The Planning Minister, Nick Boles MP concluding the debate highlighted the work done by David Burrowes MP in raising concerns about FOBTs and the number of betting shops on high streets.
Following the debate David Burrowes called on Enfield Council to use its powers to stop the proliferation of betting shops.
He said “The Planning Minister reminded MPs of the availability of an Article 4 direction to help protect the high street from saturation by uses like betting shops. Southwark Council has successfully obtained an Article 4 direction and now Enfield Council should stop dithering and get on with securing the extra local power to provide for our high streets. Enfield Council has been keen to get powers to stop spitting but has ignored my calls for powers to stop more betting shops.”
David Burrowes MP has welcomed the news that the Government is giving more power to local authorities to control the number of betting shops opening in their area.
In the current system, a betting shop is in the same category as a bank or estate agent and can open without the need for a planning application when a premises becomes vacant. However, under new measures announced by the Government yesterday, gambling firms that want to open new betting shops on the high street will have to submit a planning application and local councils will be able to refuse these applications and stop a betting shop from opening if they think it will be detrimental to the surrounding area.
David Burrowes MP said: “I have been campaigning for some time for additional powers for local authorities to stop the proliferation of betting shops along our local high streets. This announcement by the Government allows for more local control over our high streets and I hope that Enfield Council will use these new powers to avoid the clustering of shop uses like betting shops. I also welcome the measures to protect problem gamblers from FOBTs. This once again shows that the Government is on the side of local business and community and I welcome these new measures wholeheartedly.”
David Burrowes added “However it is disappointing that the Council has failed to use existing powers like applying for an Article 4 direction to tackle the issue of the proliferation of betting shops. I will continue to press the Government for more local licensing powers to include a cumulative impact test for new betting shops application. Finally, the Government’s Budget increase in tax on FOBTs has already had an impact with William Hill announcing over 100 closures of betting shops.”
Text from Parliament
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I invite the Minister to take no lessons from the Opposition who are just opportunistic about FOBTs—in 2000 there were none, but in 2010 there was an explosion of 30,000 FOBT machines. The packages yesterday to protect communities are welcome in my constituency, which has seen a saturation-level of FOBTs, particularly in Palmers Green. Will she also consider the introduction of a cumulative impact test for licence applications? Is it part of the package? That would assist communities that want to take back control of this issue.
Mrs Grant: I know that my hon. Friend has considerable concerns about FOBTs, not just in his constituency but around the country. We will see strengthened play protections that will help to deal with the risks of FOBTs, wider self-exclusion and more intervention. I am happy to have a chat with him about the issue of impact assessments that he has raised.
Best wishes
David
David Burrowes MP
A Strong Local Voice for Enfield Southgate
The fact that he 'voted' the opposite way is irrelevant because it was in the last parliament.