Why you should back High Streets First

A new campaign wants locals to be given powers to limit the number of betting shops on their streets

A new campaign wants locals to be given powers to limit the number of betting shops on their streets.

Betting shops are now more common than post offices, libraries and newsagents on some high streets in our poorest areas. As businesses shut in the downturn, more bookmakers are opening in their place. They play to people's faith in brute luck rather than effort, they tempt addiction, and they are beyond the control of local democracy.

I'm not against responsible gambling. I gamble myself. But my constituency in Southwark is one of the most deprived areas in London and has 77 bookmakers (I pass ten on my walk to the train station every morning) while Hackney has 64. As councillors we get complaints about bookies "taking over the high street" and putting off other businesses from moving in. Brave colleagues like Claire Hickson have spoken out but we have no meaningful way of stemming the tide.

High Streets First is a new campaign designed to change all that. We have a rare opportunity to make a difference. An independent review from Mary Portas has recommended giving councils new powers to limit the number of bookmakers on their streets. The government is now deciding whether to accept that recommendation, promising to report back by May. If we want the government to say yes, we need to make some noise.

Currently bookmakers have it frighteningly easy. They can open up in the same premises as a bank, estate agent, job centre or restaurant without a change in planning permission. In her review into British high streets, Portas recommended changing the "use class" of bookies, giving local councils the chance to limit the growth of new outlets.

The independent gambling reform group Grasp is helping to lead the campaign. David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, has endorsed us from the left and Tory councillors including David Parsons, chair of the LGA environment committee, support reform from the right. The Local Government Association, Joan Ruddock MP, Harriet Harman MP, local councillors, charities and residents are all calling for change, and we're backed by Change.org and all the major progressive blogs.

And there's one other reason to support High Streets First. It has a good chance of winning. What we're asking for is tangible, specific and it seems consistent with the government's rhetoric on pushing power downwards. As a first step, sign the petition and invite Eric Pickles to agree.

Local democracy should be a principle, not a gamble. Our high streets don't deserve anything less.

Sign the petition

 

Rowenna Davis is a councillor, journalist and author of Tangled up in Blue: Blue Labour and the Struggle for Labour's Soul, published by Ruskin Publishing at £8.99. She is also a Labour councillor.

 

Rowenna Davis is Labour PPC for Southampton Itchen and a councillor for Peckham

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.