Reed plays both tables: Croydon anti-casino crusader silent as Lambeth scraps “No Casino” rule

Lambeth’s long-standing “no casino” rule is heading for the scrapheap — and the spotlight is now falling on one of the borough’s most senior political figures.

The Labour-run council’s Licensing Committee voted this week to recommend removing the decades-old resolution that effectively blocks new casinos from opening in the borough. The proposal will now go before Full Council for formal sign-off next week.

The move has prompted Lambeth Liberal Democrats to write directly to Steve Reed, the local MP for Streatham and Croydon North and, crucially, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

They are calling on him to publicly oppose the change — and to explain what appears to be a widening gap between Labour’s rhetoric and its record.

For years, Lambeth’s “no casino” rule has stood as a symbolic and practical barrier against large-scale gambling expansion. Removing it does not automatically grant a licence to any specific operator, but it does clear a significant policy hurdle for potential applicants.

The timing is awkward.

In neighbouring Croydon, Reed has supported calls for tighter controls on gambling premises, backing a public petition aimed at curbing the spread of betting shops and casinos.

In Lambeth, however, his own party colleagues are poised to remove one of the borough’s clearest anti-casino protections.

Is that a principled distinction based on local circumstances? Or is it politics tailored to postcode?

Liberal Democrat councillors argue that the contrast is stark. They say it raises an obvious question: why campaign against gambling expansion on one side of the constituency boundary, while remaining silent as restrictions are loosened on the other?

At January’s Full Council meeting, Lib Dem councillors tabled a motion calling for the “no casino” rule to be retained as a public health safeguard. They described it as an undertaking to residents that gambling harms are taken seriously and warned that existing licensing protections are already under strain.

Labour members did not back that motion.

Now, with the Licensing Committee having recommended the policy’s removal, the debate moves to the full chamber — and potentially into the national arena.

Reed occupies a dual role. As a Cabinet minister, he sits at the heart of the government overseeing local government and community policy. As a constituency MP, he represents large parts of Lambeth directly affected by the council’s decision.

That dual position inevitably invites scrutiny.

Can he credibly call for tighter gambling controls in Croydon while declining to intervene — or even comment — on Lambeth’s decision? Does localism mean letting councils decide, even when those councils are run by your own party? Or does ministerial responsibility carry an expectation of consistency?

Cllr Donna Harris, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group in Lambeth, told Brixton Buzz:

“Steve Reed cannot have it both ways. He cannot campaign against gambling expansion in Croydon, while turning a blind eye as his own party opens the door to casinos here in Lambeth.”

“As MP for Streatham and a Cabinet minister, he has a responsibility to stand up for all his constituents — not just when it is politically convenient. Lambeth residents deserve clarity, leadership and protection from policies that risk increasing harm in our communities.”

Lambeth Labour councillors argue that removing the blanket “no casino” stance simply aligns borough policy with the wider licensing framework, allowing applications to be judged on their merits rather than blocked in principle. They maintain that any future proposals would still be subject to strict regulatory controls.

Critics counter that once the principle is abandoned, the door is open.

The final decision now rests with Full Council. But the political question may linger beyond that vote: where exactly does Steve Reed stand when it comes to gambling expansion in the communities he represents — and does that position shift depending on which town hall he’s addressing?