| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.45 pm
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
'(3) Sections 281 and 282 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increases in maximum terms of imprisonment) shall apply to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (c. 2) as amended by this section.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14 to 18.
Mr. Caborn: Amendment No. 19 is a small technical amendment. It will ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will apply to the offences inserted in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 by the Bill in respect of unlawful pool betting and the submission of accounts for Gaming Board scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 deal with the period within which pool operators will be obliged to submit their accounts.
Once the exclusive licence comes to an end, anyone with a bookmaker's permit will be able to carry on pool betting business, subject to some requirements, the most significant of which is compliance with the regulatory regime set out in schedule 1, which will become schedule 1A to the 1963 Act.
Under part 3 of schedule 1A bookmakers will be required to submit monthly pool betting accounts to a supervising accountant, and this requirement must be complied with within seven days of the end of the month to which the accounts relate.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) tabled an amendment in Committee to extend that period from seven to 28 days, and I agreed to consider it, but I awaited further evidence from the Tote to support its concerns that seven days was not sufficient.
After the point was raised in Committee, the Tote explained why it would be difficult for it to comply with the provisions as drafted. I am therefore satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the period to 28 days, which is achieved by amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Mr. Caborn: I turn to amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. On Second Reading I announced the extension of the levy until 2006. I am pleased that that was well received
by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I believe that it brought certainty to the industry. We fully expect that the Tote will have been sold by that date, so consequential amendments need to be made to existing legislation in respect of the Tote's role in the levy negotiations. We see no place for the privately owned successor company on the levy board, so amendment No. 16 removes the seat on the board held by the current Tote chairman, who will not be replaced on the board.However, so long as the successor company is being run in the interests of racing, pursuant to the exclusive licence, we see benefit in allowing it to retain the Tote's ability to negotiate the levy separately from other bookmakers, because that will give it an effective way to make its contribution to racing. Should the levy system outlive the exclusive licence, the provisions make it clear that the successor company will be assessed for levy in the same way as any other bookmaker.
I hope that hon. Members find the amendments acceptable.
Mr. Paice: I welcome amendments Nos. 14 and 15, and thank the Minister for reconsidering the amendments that we tabled in Committee and recognising the validity of our case by changing the period for the submission of accounts from seven days to 28 days.
As the Minister said, amendment No. 19 is technical.
On amendment No. 16, the Minister referred to the removal of the Tote chairman from the levy board. I understand his reasoning, but when will that actually happen? We are in a state of flux. We do not know precisely when the Tote will be sold, although we hope that it might be soon. We know that the levy board will be wound up in 2006, subject to the next group of amendments. However, it is not clear when the amendment will take effect. Will the Tote chairman remain on the levy board until such time as the Tote is sold? The amendment does not specify a date, but implies that he will be removed as soon as the Act comes into force, which might predate the sale of the Tote. Subject to that clarification, I am happy with the amendments.
Mr. Caborn: The provision will become operational when the Tote is sold. I understand from the lawyers that that is about fairness. When the Tote goes into the marketplace, the chairman forgoes his right to be on the levy board.
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 26, at end insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under section 15(1)(d) providing for the Horserace Betting Levy Board to cease to exist unless the order also makes provision, or an earlier order under section 15(1) has made provision, for a "transfer scheme" under this section.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 11, line 7 [Clause 16], leave out 'have effect' and insert
'shall not have effect until—
(a) the Secretary of State has published a report of the outcome of the consideration by the Office of Fair Trading into the arrangements for the sale of data and media rights by the British Horseracing Board and
(b) the scheme has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.
Mr. Paice: The amendments deal with the abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. That has caused a considerable amount of debate in this House and in Committee, as well as in the racing industry. As I said on Second Reading, not everybody connected with horse racing is entirely happy with the Government's proposals to abolish the levy and the levy board—the bookmaking industry certainly is not, and has argued the case for retaining it. Conservative Members accept that the levy is somewhat anachronistic, as is the Government's involvement in determining it, given that the system is being moved closer to the marketplace. That is right, so we support the measure in principle.
We should bear in mind, however, that the racing industry is in a state of tremendous uncertainty and flux, particularly in relation to the investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, the rule 14 notice that the OFT served last April, and the continuing discussions between the OFT and the industry on whether the industry can adjust its modus operandi and structure to meet the OFT's concerns without the rule 14 notice having to be enforced. It is widely believed throughout the industry that if the OFT maintains that stance, it will lead to a significant reduction in racing's income from the commercial sale of data, which would have a knock-on effect on the number of race courses and the number of jobs in the racing industry. The OFT's stance is based on its odd contention that it is perfectly acceptable for bookmakers to operate en bloc in negotiating for data rights, but unacceptable for race courses to do likewise. I find that argument difficult to accept, and I believe that the Minister shares my doubts; nevertheless, that is the situation.
Further uncertainty is created by the consideration by the European Court of Justice of the case brought by the bookmakers. Given the way in which matters proceed in that court, it could be a long time before there is any outcome. Another factor is the renegotiation of the commercial arrangements between "Attheraces" and 49 race courses for the sale of media rights. I do not think that that is as much of a doomsday scenario as the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) suggested, and it is of course an entirely commercial negotiation—it is not a matter for the Government to get involved with, nor should it be—but it clearly adds to the significant uncertainty.
It is essential that in passing the Bill, the House does not make matters worse by adding to the uncertainty. That is why, despite my support for the principle of ending the levy, I believe that we should have another bite at the cherry. Without wishing to repeat the confusion that arose in respect of the earlier group, I must point out that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 offer two alternative approaches, on the basis that there is then a
greater chance that one of them might be acceptable to the Government. That is probably wishful thinking, but it is nevertheless an option.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): It is an each-way bet.
Mr. Paice: If they come in first and second, I shall be delighted, but knowing my luck it is not very likely.
Amendment No. 3 proposes that when the Secretary of State places before the House the order for the abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, as is required by clause 15(1), it should contain the details of the transfer scheme that is part and parcel of the disposal of the board and its property, assets, rights and liabilities.
Amendment No. 4, as a pick-your-own alternative, suggests that before any transfer scheme could take effect, the Secretary of State should publish a report on the outcome of the OFT's consideration of the arrangements for the sale of data and media rights by the British Horseracing Board, and that the transfer scheme should then be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The purpose of both amendments is to give the House time to consider the issue. We hope that we shall soon know the outcome of the negotiations with the OFT—the most significant of the variables to which I referred.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |