Fixed-odd betting terminals: An open letter to David Burrowes MP

I've now received the following reply to my open letter:

Mr Clarke

Thank you for your congratulations. I do indeed have a record of opposing the proliferation of betting shops and the negative impact of FOBTS. I was pleased that in the last Parliament additional planning powers were provided for Councils to control new applications for betting shops, information was required to be displayed during use of FOBTs and tax was increased on gaming machines.

I would be very concerned about a relaxation of regulations in relation to FOBTs. However I think it is worth not just relying on the new Culture Secretary's comments in 2012, when he was in a very different position on the Select Committee, but asking him or his Minister directly whether there any plans in relation to FOBTs. I will do this and let you know his response.


Best wishes

David

I regard this as only partially adequate. He has undertaken to speak to the Culture Secretary to ask about plans regarding FOBTs, but he has not responded to my request to talk to other MPs about the FOBT problem or given any indication whether he would like to see them banned.

If other readers support the idea of banning these dreadful machines, could I suggest that you write to David Burrowes or your MP is you live in another constituency?

Hmm,

Mr Burrowes has a habit of saying one thing to his constituents and then voting in Parliament in a contradictory way.

From theyworkforyou.com :

On 17 May 2011:
David Burrowes voted against making specific planning permission be required for betting shops rather than allowing any premises with permission for use for financial and professional services to become a betting shop.

On 4 Dec 2013:
David Burrowes voted to increase the stake, and prize, limits for certain categories of gambling machine.

On 8 Jan 2014:
David Burrowes voted against giving local councils powers to prevent the proliferation of fixed odds betting terminals and betting shops

On 8 Jan 2014:
David Burrowes voted against giving local government more powers to regulate betting shops and fixed odds betting terminals.

So I wouldn't expect him to do anything about this.

Regards,

Andrew Nix

As David Burrowes' reply didn't include an answer to my points about trying to tighten regulations and completely ban these machines, I've (rather belatedly) sent him another email. See below.

Dear Mr Burrowes,

Thank you for your reply and for your undertaking to speak to the new Culture Secretary. I am, however, very disappointed that you did you answer one of the most important questions in my original message:

“As one of your constituents, I am asking you to discuss this issue with your parliamentary colleagues, with a view to building up some strong opposition to any relaxation and preferably to reducing the number of or completely outlawing these machines, and making these views known to the prime minister.”

Unless you simply overlooked this part of the message, and the earlier references to tightening or completely banning Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, I can only assume that you are content that these pernicious machines should be allowed to be installed in betting shops, despite the terrible damage that they cause both to the gamblers themselves and their families and friends and the wider community.

I was prompted to write again by a report in yesterday’s Independent based on information released under the Freedom of Information Act (the article is at http://ind.pn/1FmM5Gs ). The information reveals that betting shop staff called for police assistance more than 9000 times in 2014. The evidence points to FOBTs being a particular cause of violent behaviour by punters – not surprising considering that they can lose £100 every 20 seconds and the machines are deliberately designed to be addictive. The article also asserts that the level of violent incidents is actually higher, but the management of betting shop chains discourages staff from calling the police because of the damage to their firms’ reputation.

After your reply to my messages was posted to the Palmers Green Community website, one of the website forum users posted some information about your previous record in relation to FOBTs (see http://bit.ly/1Fjjr8h.) It seems that in parliamentary debates you have opposed moves to tighten the regulation of these machines and also to make it more difficult to convert premises into betting shops. Could you explain why you did so?

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.

Yours sincerely,

Basil Clarke

Hi Basil.

I have emailed and tweeted David Burrowes regarding this matter but have had no response.

He did manage to tweet a picture of Arsenal fans from Wembley on Saturday though.

Andy

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:


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

Dear Basil,

I quote from Mr Burrowes' reply:
" I note the intervention of Mr Nix who has misapplied those votes in the previous Parliament."

On 8 Jan 2014:
David Burrowes voted against giving local councils powers to prevent the proliferation of fixed odds betting terminals and betting shops

On 8 Jan 2014:
David Burrowes voted against giving local government more powers to regulate betting shops and fixed odds betting terminals.

January 2014. How have I misapplied those votes? Maybe I have missed something.

Regards,

Andrew Nix

I have had a couple of email replies from David Burrowes regarding this. Similar to yours, Basil.

What he seems to be saying is that:
A) He is on the record in parliament 'saying' that he doesn't agree with FOBTs and the proliferation of betting shops in the constituency.
The fact that he 'voted' the opposite way is irrelevant because it was in the last parliament.
C) Labour (two parliaments ago) relaxed regulations on betting and for him to vote to oppose tighter regulation would have been disingenuous because no one is allowed ever to change their position ever.

Clear as mud.

Andrew Nix

The news that during 2014 in Enfield alone over £16 million was lost by people "playing" fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) prompts me to restart this topic.

I was intending to reply to David Burrowes, but rather lost heart, as it has become clear that he is not prepared to take any action to curb these dreadful machines. In neither of his replies did he answer my direct question about whether he would campaign for a reduction in maximum stakes or a complete ban. Instead, he quibbled over his past record: the quotes from Hansard supposedly prove his determination to do something (the fact that he has consistently voted against any measures is presumably irrelevant).

In fact, David Burrowes' past record is a red herring as far as I'm concerned, because if I'd continued the dialogue I would have said that it was future actions that interest me, not the past. I was hoping that, as someone who advertises his religious beliefs, he might agree with me that profiting from such machines is an immoral way of earning money and hence illegitimate.

Anyway, this month has seen another blow to this campaign, when the government turned down a request from 93 local councils (31 from London) to reduce the maximum stake from £100 to £2. The request was made under the terms of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. The councils are clearly worried about the distress caused to their residents, but it seems that the government is satisfied with reassurances made by the gambling industry that they are looking after the interests of punters. Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Incidentally, there's an official Parliamentary briefing paper about FOBTs .

Basil,

Gambling companies pay tax to the Exchequer on their earnings. That's all this Government (and the previous two: coalition and Labour) care about. All they are interested in is this transfer of monies from the poor and vulnerable to the rich.

David Burrowes can rattle on about his religious convictions (which from what I can see amount to discriminating against women and homosexuals) all he likes. At the end of the day he is a loyal and obedient Conservative minister.

Regards,

Andrew Nix