The boss of William Hill has conceded that clusters of betting shops can cause harm and alienate local communities.
Ralph Topping, chief executive of Britain’s biggest bookmaker, said he understood why people objected to new shops opening on their high streets and had seen ‘stark examples’ of their impact.
He has even proposed giving licensing authorities extra powers to block new shops if they believe there will be a damaging ‘cumulative impact’.
It appears to be a significant concession to the growing chorus of campaigners and MPs calling for new regulations for the sector amid fierce criticism of casino-style gaming machines.
Dubbed the ‘crack cocaine of gambling’, these machines, called fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTS), allow punters to spend £100 per spin on roulette games.
They generate around half the total revenue of betting shops and have been blamed for an escalation in problem gambling and allegations of aggressive tactics to market them at new customers.
Campaigners say clusters of betting shops in one area make it easier to circumvent the rules which only allow four FOBT machines per shop – by opening another shop next door.
Mr Topping, who has spent 40 years at the firm, made the admission as industry leaders are under pressure to make proposals to the government this week for how to increase player protection from gaming machines.
He said in an interview: ‘I’m against betting shop clustering on social grounds. I can see for myself some pretty stark examples of this and I can see why people might raise localised objections.
Betting shops have always been part of the community, but when the situation starts to alienate communities the industry needs to listen and politicians need to act. We think a ‘cumulative impact’ test would be lawful and could be sensibly applied by licensing authorities.’
Anti-gambling campaigners are pushing for ministers to go much further by slashing the stakes for these machines from £100 to £2, but the bookmakers are anxious to head off such a move.
Mr Topping, who earned £1.9million last year, told the Racing Post he ‘totally rejects’ restricting particular products. He claims it would ‘do nothing to reduce gambling-related harm’ and the resulting closures of betting shops would have a major impact on horse racing.
Until the 2005 Gambling Act was passed, betting shops were subject to a ‘demand test’ – under which they had to convince licensing magistrates there was an unsatisfied demand for a new bookmakers by getting locals to back their application.
Labour’s Ed Miliband has called for local authorities to have powers to review existing licences and allow communities to decide to reduce the number of FOBTs – which first appeared in 2001. He said they are ‘spreading like an epidemic’ on Britain’s high streets.
In Newham, London, there are 87 betting shops with 348 machines. In Liverpool there are 153 betting shops with around 559 FOBTs. David Cameron said he shared concerns over the machines.
Mr Topping, backed by Betfred chairman Fred Done, is now backing a new ‘cumulative impact’ test, similar to the one used for alcohol licensing. This would allow shops to be rejected by planners if they cause ‘social, economic or community concerns.’
But it is understood Paddy Power, which has 150 shops in the UK but is planning to expand heavily, is not in favour, saying it would be anti-competitive. William Hill have 2,400 of the 9,000 existing betting shops.
Adrian Parkinson of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling said Mr Topping was ‘trying to fool people’.
He said: ‘Companies of the size of William Hill, Ladbrokes and Betfred would not be bothered by a new test. It would only increase the value of their betting shops in an area as no one would be able to open in competition to them.
‘It also wouldn’t solve the problem of local authorities who want to reject a betting shop facing the threat of expensive legal action from the bookmaker.
‘William Hill in particular is the cause of clustering in many areas. What Topping is proposing is a watered down measure that would not provide any greater powers to local authorities. It shouldn’t even be considered.’
source : www.dailymail.co.uk
