The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Martyn
Jones
Banks,
Gordon
(Ochil and South Perthshire)
(Lab)
Carswell,
Mr. Douglas
(Harwich)
(Con)
Ellwood,
Mr. Tobias
(Bournemouth, East)
(Con)
Foster,
Mr. Don
(Bath)
(LD)
Griffiths,
Nigel
(Edinburgh, South)
(Lab)
Hall,
Mr. Mike
(Weaver Vale)
(Lab)
Heppell,
Mr. John
(Nottingham, East)
(Lab)
Hurd,
Mr. Nick
(Ruislip-Northwood)
(Con)
Kilfoyle,
Mr. Peter
(Liverpool, Walton)
(Lab)
Lepper,
David
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Lab/Co-op)
Robinson,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Coventry, North-West)
(Lab)
Stuart,
Ms Gisela
(Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab)
Sutcliffe,
Mr. Gerry
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and
Sport)
Ward,
Claire
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Whittingdale,
Mr. John
(Maldon and East Chelmsford)
(Con)
Yeo,
Mr. Tim
(South Suffolk)
(Con)
Younger-Ross,
Richard
(Teignbridge)
(LD)
Glen
McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Griffith,
Nia
(Llanelli) (Lab)
Fifth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 10
July
2007
[Mr.
Martyn Jones
in the
Chair]
Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
(Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting
Levy) Order
2007.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to consider the
draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Totalisator Board) Order 2007 and
the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order
2007.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
Good afternoon to you, Mr.
Jones, and to the Committee. I look forward to your strong
stewardship, but hope that it will not be necessary. I welcome the hon.
Member for Bournemouth, East to his new position on the Front Bench and
congratulate him on his appointment.
The context of the debate is
the coming into force of the Gambling Act 2005 on 1 September.
Hon. Members will recall that it establishes the Gambling Commission as
a regulator for gambling in Great Britain, creating a unified,
streamlined licensing regime for gambling operators and premises. The
2005 Act requires those offering facilities for gambling to obtain
an operating licence, issued by the Gambling
Commission. Premises that provide gambling facilities will be required
to obtain a premises licence from the local authority. Generally, a
person can be granted a premises licence only if they hold an operating
licence authorising the
activity.
I will begin
by summarising the purpose of the three draft orders. The draft
Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007 and the draft
Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Totalisator Board) Order 2007 allow two
specific bodiesthe Horserace Betting Levy Board and the
Toteto continue operating for the time being. The levy
board will continue until a satisfactory alternative commercial
mechanism is identified and the Tote will be retained in its present
form until its sale is completed. The 2005 Act was drafted on the basis
that neither body would exist when it came into force, hence the need
for the orders.
The
draft Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2007 will
ensure the effective continued operation of the levy board by
permitting information to flow between it and the Gambling Commission
for the purpose of carrying out their respective functions. It also
adds the British Boxing Board of Control to the sports bodies listed in
the 2005
Act for the purposes of information sharing, thus helping to ensure
openness and integrity in betting on boxing
matches.
I turn to the
detail of the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order
2007. The levy was established under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries
Act 1963 to collect money from bookmakers and the Tote for three
statutory purposes: the improvement of horse breeds, the advancement of
veterinary science and education and the improvement of horse racing.
The Horserace Betting Levy Board was set up as a public body to receive
the levy and to administer payments from it, including race prize money
and integrity
payments.
In March
2000, the Government announced their intention to abolish the levy
board and the levy mechanism in response to the racing
industrys view that a more modern and commercially based
funding mechanism was available, whereby television coverage of races,
data on runners and riders, fixture lists and so on could be sold to
bookmakers at commercial rates. Provision was made for the abolition of
the board in the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004.
However, the European Court of Justice ruling in November 2004 cast
serious doubt over racings ability to secure adequate payment
for the use of its data and therefore over the viability of the
proposed replacement funding model. As a result of that ruling and the
recommendations of the future funding of racing review group, my
predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), made an announcement in
December
2006.
Mr.
Don Foster (Bath) (LD): The Minister seems to be putting
all of the blame on the European Union. Will he confirm that the future
funding of racing review group also concluded that, even if the
European Union had agreed to that measure going ahead, the sums
of money involved£90 million to £100
millionwould not have been forthcoming, and that the Government
were wrong in the first
place?
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am not sure that I accept that point, but the
hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. Clearly he is more experienced
in the debates and negotiations on the matter than I. However, I will
check his facts and write to him in due course. I cannot believe that
the Government got it
wrong.
Mr.
Foster:
The Minister might not believe it, but his right
hon. Friend the former Minister for Sport, on 14 December last year,
said what I have just
said.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I trust the hon. Gentleman and have no doubt
that my right hon. Friend said that, but I am sure that my right hon.
Friend did not allude to the Government getting it
wrong.
The main
purpose of the order is to allow the levy board to remain in existence
and to continue carrying out all of its functions after 1 September. In
due course we intend to repeal part 2 of the 2004 Act, which provided
for the abolition of the levy system. That will ensure that Parliament
can debate a measure to abolish the levy in the light of the
circumstances prevailing at the time.
The order has a secondary
purpose. Under the 2005 Act, the Gambling Commission issues operating
licences to bookmakers. That replaces the system under the 1963 Act
which required bookmakers to hold bookmakers permits. Under the
old system, the relevant authority could refuse to renew a permit if
the levy board provided evidence that a bookmaker had repeatedly failed
to pay the
levy.
Article 3 of the
draft order allows the Levy Board to continue to take a role in the
review and revocation of licences by requiring the commission to carry
out a review of an operating licence if notified by the board that the
holder of the licence has failed to pay the levy for at least three
months, and to revoke the licence if appropriate. It also gives
bookmakers the opportunity to make representations to the commission
before any decision to revoke their operating licence for non-payment
of the levy is made.
I
turn now to the second draft instrument, the Gambling Act 2005
(Horserace Totalisator Board) Order 2007. The Horserace Totalisator
Boardthe Toteis a statutory corporation established by
the Government under the Racecourse Betting Act 1928 to provide pool
betting services on horse racing. In line with the Governments
commitment to disengage from areas of life where it is no longer
appropriate for central Government to have a role, legislative
provision was made in the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act
2004 for the Tote to be removed from the public sector.
Part 1 of the 2004 Act enables
the Government to dissolve the Tote and create a successor company to
receive its assets and liabilities for onward sale to a
commercial operator. The Act also enables the Government to direct the
Gambling Commission to issue that third party with an exclusive
seven-year licence to offer pool betting on horse races on approved
race courses. It is now clear that the dissolution of the Tote and the
issuing of the exclusive licence will not have been achieved by 1
Septemberthe date on which the 2005 Act comes into
force.
Mr.
Douglas Carswell (Harwich) (Con): Although I welcome the
decision to sell off the Tote, will the Minister explain why it has
taken so long? I believe that it was first mooted in 2001. It is now
2007.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am aware of the length of time that has been
taken. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of complex negotiations
and discussions about the make-up of the various bids for the Tote. The
latest bid is being considered and I hope that an announcement can be
made very shortly on the
decision.
Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): You were not the
Minister
then.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
And it was not my fault. I fully understand the
concern that a decision be taken. I hope that that can be done very
quickly after proper evaluation of the
bid.
As the Committee
will know, now that the staff and management of the Tote have joined
the consortium negotiations are proceeding. The Government
hope to be able to announce how they intend
to proceed
shortly. The order is designed to enable the Tote to continue to operate
on its current basis from 1 September until such time as these
negotiations are concluded or the Tote is otherwise disposed of. The
order therefore allows the lawful continuation of the 1963 Act
arrangements for pool betting on horse races.
The order also amends section
33 of the 2005 Act to ensure that the Tote, and others acting under its
authority, can exercise its exclusive statutory right to offer pool
betting without requiring an operating licence. This mirrors the
position under the 1963 Act whereby a bookmakers permit is not
required to authorise such activity. The order also ensures that a
person commits an offence if they infringe the Totes exclusive
right to provide pool
betting.
A
consequential amendment to section 163 of the 2005 Act enables the Tote
to obtain a betting premises licence without holding a betting
operating licence. Finally, sections 336 to 338 of the 2005 Act enable
the Gambling Commission in certain circumstances to void bets accepted
by the holder of a betting operating licence. The order modifies those
provisions to ensure that they also apply where bets are entered into
with the Tote or a person acting with the authority of the Tote. It
therefore subjects the Tote to the same controls as other betting
operators in this
regard.
Finally,
I turn to the Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2007,
which deals with the exchange of information between the Gambling
Commission and other authorities. For the Horserace Betting Levy Board
to fulfil its statutory functions and to be in a position to object to
the issuing of an operating licence or the call for the withdrawal of
such a licence, it must have access to an up-to-date list of betting
operators and to bookmaker information that is not in the public
domain.
Part 2 of
schedule 6 to the 2005 Act lists enforcement and
regulatory officials and bodies to which the Gambling Commission is
empowered to supply information, and which may themselves
supply information to the commission. The order amends part 2 to
include an entry for the levy board, thus allowing it to have access to
information on bookmakers held by the commission and to provide
information to the
commission.
The order
also includes measures designed to extend the
Gambling Commissions information sharing powers to boxing. This
is one of the sports, other than horse racing, on which British betting
operators increasingly take bets. The British Boxing Board of Control,
the governing body for professional boxing, has asked to be added to
the list of bodies in part 3 of schedule 6 to the 2005 Act, which lists
sports governing bodies to which the Gambling Commission is empowered
to supply information. The Gambling Commission supports the inclusion
of boxing, and the order amends part 3 to include an entry for the
British Boxing Board of Control.
Information sharing is part of
a suite of measures introduced by the 2005 Act that are intended to
help to uphold high levels of sports betting integrity. Other measures
include the voiding of bets and a new offence of cheating. Information
sharing is vital for the effective investigation of alleged breaches of
a sports ruling bodys rules or of the placing of
illegal bets.
All the
draft orders before us today are practical measures. Two of them are
designed to ensure that the modernised, improved betting environment
that is
created by the Gambling Act 2005 and its precursor, the 2004 Act, comes
into force in respect of the Horse Race Betting Levy Board and the Tote
only when the time is right. I hope that, with those explanations, the
Committee will support the draft orders.
4.40
pm
Mr.
Ellwood:
It is a pleasure to be working under your
stewardship today, Mr. Jones. I welcome you to the Chair and
thank the Minister for the kind words in his introduction. We are both
starting from the beginning, and I look forward to sparring with him. I
am sure that there will be areas on which we agree and that when we do
not agree, we will spend a lot of time scrutinising what the Government
do.
The Minister
certainly has a reputation for being thoughtful, approachable and
engaging, and the same can be said for the hon. Member for Bath, who
has, I understand, spent more time in betting shops than Pat Butcher.
We have a good team here, which will be able to scrutinise legislation
in a number of areas. In fact, when I was asked what my first statutory
instrument would be about, I hoped that it would be casinos, and that
we would get some answers on those.
Lord
Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Claire Ward):
That
was last
week.
Mr.
Ellwood:
Well, we are still waiting to know where the
first super-casino will be.
I am already wandering away
from my brief, so let me return to the three orders before us today.
All of them are connected with horse racing. As we heard, the draft
Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007 allows the
Horserace Betting Levy Board to continue to apply the
bookmakers levy and the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace
Totalisator Board) Order 2007 saves provisions of the Betting, Gaming
and Lotteries Act 1963 relating to Tote pool betting. Finally in this
three-course feast of betting legislation, we have the draft Gambling
Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2007, which is concerned with
scrutiny by the Gambling Commission of the British Boxing Board of
Control and the Horserace Betting Levy
Board.
The measures
are all fairly straightforward. They are not controversial, and you
will not find us challenging them, Mr. Jones. We will not
vote against them, and I am now being encouraged to sit down and let
the Committee get on with it[Hon.
Members: Hear, hear!] I am pleased to be
cheered, but we do not agree with some of the detail. First I have to
ask why on earth we are considering these statutory instruments at all.
They all alter very new legislationmost of it is so fresh that
it has not even come into forceso we have to ask what has
happened to the timetable on the Tote that has put us in the position
of having to rush through three statutory instruments before the
Gambling Act comes into force on 1 September.
The first instrument is the
draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007. The levy
board applies the bookmakers levy for three statutory purposes:
an improvement of the breeds of horses;
the advancement and encouragement of veterinary support; and the
improvement of horse racing as a whole. The Government announced their
intention to abolish the levy board and the levy mechanism in March
2000 on the basis that a commercially based alternative funding
mechanism was viable. Indeed, they went further: the Horserace Betting
and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 and the Gambling Act 2005 made provision
for the abolition of the levy and the levy board. However, a European
Court of Justice ruling in November 2004 cast serious doubt on the
sports ability to enforce substantial payments for the use of
its data and, as a result, on the viability of the proposed replacement
funding model as well. In December 2006, some two years after the ECJ
ruling, the Government announced that they had decided to retain the
levy board
until such
time as a secure and adequate alternative commercial funding
arrangement can be identified.[Official Report,
14 December 2006; Vol. 454, c.
94WS.]
Can the Minister update
us on where we stand on developing that secure funding and tell us why
we face this statutory instrument today?
The Government have announced
their intention to repeal part 2 of the Horserace Betting and Olympic
Lottery Act 2004 in due course to allow full parliamentary debate.
Again I urge the Minister to provide a little more clarity in that
area. Today, we are providing a stay of execution before the Gambling
Act comes into force in September, which would have killed the levy
board off.
The draft
order also provides for the new Gambling Commission to carry out a
review of a bookmakers operating licence if notified by the
levy board that the holder of the operating licence has failed to pay
the levy for at least three months. That is a useful piece of
housekeeping, but why was it not considered before? Is there a
possibility that the Government will heed calls from parts of the
industry, as has been insinuated, once again to remove the board? Will
we see another statutory instrument in the near future? Does not the
necessity of the SI bring into question and expose the fact that the
Governments timetable has gone completely out of synch and led
to the Tote going down a bumpy roadon a
roller-coasterwith no end in sight?
The second SI that we are
talking about today deals with the Horserace Totalisator Board.
The Totes powers were originally gained from the Betting,
Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, much of which was repealed by the
Gambling Act 2005, which comes into force in September. The
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 allows the Secretary
of State to sell the Tote and to direct the Gambling Commission
to give the successor company an exclusive seven-year licence to
operate pool betting. As the Gambling Act comes into force in September
and the Tote has not been sold, the order is required to allow the
Totes lawful continuation.
How did we get ourselves into
this pickle? It began back in 2001 with Labours general
election manifesto promise to sell of the Tote. What is the reason for
the delay? We could put it down to the fact that we are dealing with a
socialist Government who do not have much experience with privatising
national assetsthey are usually more comfortable with going the
other way
and nationalising such assetsbut, in fact, as has been touched
on before, the delay is to with the sale price itself.
There was an interesting
statement by the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for
Sheffield, Central. To a question about the sale of the Tote, he
replied:
The
hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have said in two general
election manifestos that we will sell the Tote into racing. It is not
the Treasury that has been a major problem but
Europe.
There was then a
huge interruption, but the right hon. Gentleman went
on:
Perhaps
the hon. Gentleman will listen. We are trying to sell the Tote at a
fair price, but we were told very clearly that it has to be sold at a
market price. We had a lot of wrangling with the European Commission
and its competition director-general, but eventually we got to an
agreement on a market price.[Official Report, 25
June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 14.]
Can the Minister explain the difference
between a fair price and a market price? Surely those two prices should
be the same. Essentially, the European Union blocked the sale for
£300 million, as it did not believe that that reflected the true
market value. Otherwise, it would have fallen foul of European Union
rules on state aid. The value that is now being talked about is
£400 million.
Will the Minister clarify what
exactly is todays value? Can he also bring us up to date with
the discussions that he had with a number of consortiums, to which he
alluded in his opening remarks? When we will finally see the manifesto
commitment honoured? Rumour has it that the Prime Minister, in the
build-up to taking over from the previous Prime Minister, was concerned
about a potential asset-stripping deal ahead of his premiership and the
fact that a national asset might fall into the hands of private equity.
Can the Minister explain whether, now that the right hon. Gentleman has
secured his position within No. 10, we are going to see an expedition
of the sale of the Tote? Once the Tote is sold, will the earlier
promise of half the proceeds of that sale being pushed back into the
horse racing industry still be honoured? I urge the Minister for some
clarity about the Governments intentions and for him to suggest
what the odds might be for a sale during the
summer.
The final statutory instrument
is the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2007.
The order adds the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which has been facing
abolition, as we have heard, and the British Boxing Board of Control to
the list of bodies to which the Gambling Commission can supply
information. The Gambling Commission is now able to scrutinise
those two bodies, which is a very useful piece of housekeeping.
However, why is a statutory instrument necessary? Why were those issues
not foreseen and dealt with in earlier legislation?
To conclude, we have three
statutory instruments today, which, embarrassingly, are being rushed
through before the summer recess and before the might of the
Gambling Act 2005 rolls into play. Although we support the Minister
today, there is a certain irony about what we are debating. We realise
how awkward it is for him to come to terms with a new briefI
sympathiseand with the fact that first, a socialist Government
are making a promise to sell off a nationalised asset; secondly, they
are getting the price
wrong; thirdly, they are delaying the sale for fear that the Tote might
end up in the hands of those horrible capitalists in private equity,
and fourthly, there is no indication of when this tale might end and
the future of the Tote will finally be settled. I feel for the Minister
and I congratulate him on his appointment. I look forward to hearing
his answers.
4.51
pm
Mr.
Foster:
I begin by saying a huge welcome to the hon.
Member for Bournemouth, East. I thoroughly enjoyed his contribution. I
agreed with him in a number of respects, not least his concern about
the delay in the laying of the orders. Indeed, as the Minister knows
only too well from our exchanges last week, I share those concerns more
widely about a large number of statutory instruments that are still to
come before the House and that relate to the commencement of the 2005
Act on 1 September. I am still looking forward to receiving the list of
those outstanding statutory instruments, which the Minister
promised to provide me with. However, let me not digress,
Mr. Jones; I know that you would be upset if I
did.
There are a
number of points that relate to each order that I want to raise quickly
with the Minister. I begin, however, by saying that I entirely support
every single word of the statutory instruments that are before us.
Unlike the Conservative spokesman, I think that all are entirely
welcome, although I share his concerns about the delay. For example, as
I mentioned in my intervention, the Ministers predecessor, the
right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central, said in a written ministerial
statement on 14 December last year:
The Government have
decided, after much consultation and deliberation, to retain the
Horserace Betting Levy Board (Levy Board) and the associated horserace
betting levy scheme.[Official Report, 14
December 2006; Vol. 454, c.
94WS.]
Given that that statement
was made in December, it is slightly odd that we have had to wait to
the fag end of this Session of Parliament before we have the statutory
instruments to implement the decision, but they are welcome none the
less. However, I made the clear point in my intervention that the
Government set up the independent future funding of racing review
group, which concluded that there was no possibility of similar sums of
money£90 million to £100 millioncoming in
the near future from the funding forms that were originally proposed by
the Government and, to be fair to the Government, by the industry
itself, which was initially also of the view that the money
could have been raised. Clearly, both the industry and the
Government were wrong in that respect. Nevertheless, I welcome what is
being proposed.
I
think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East is right to ask the
Minister, in the light of the statutory instrument, to give us a rather
more detailed update on where we are on the sale of the Tote. The
Conservative spokesman suggested that he would not be at all unhappy if
we had a scheme whereby the Tote fell into the hands of private equity
companies. Well, I for one would be unhappy, because I served on the
Committee that scrutinised the Bill that became the 2005 Act, and we
were clearly told that the reason for considering the sale was for
ensuring that it remained in the hands of the racing industry. I
welcome the fact that we have a consortium that includes the
management and the staff of the Tote, but which also involves the
Racehorse Owners Association and the Racecourse Association.
The Minister will be well aware
that, following the decision of the European Union in respect of the
sums of money involved, the objection to the sale came not from his
Department but from the Treasury, in relation particularly to the
nature of funding from Lloyds TSB Development Capital. I would like to
know, therefore, who is going to make the decision, given that it has
cleared the European Union hurdle? Will it be a Department for Culture,
Media and Sport decision or a Treasury one? Will the Minister also give
a clear indication whether he is satisfied that the new financial
arrangements, whereby there will be, not payments in kind, but
straightforward loans are acceptable to the Department? That would be
helpful and would clear the way for the
future.
Secondly, I
welcome the introduction of the British Boxing Board of Control to the
list. The Minister said that increasingly many bets are placed on
boxing matches, and that the BBBC has responsibility for the integrity
of the sport. Given that, does he believe, as his predecessor did, that
the time has come to look at how the gambling industry could contribute
to boxing and other sports to help to fund the cost of ensuring their
integrity?
Finally, I
ask the Minister whether what he has just said and the statement made
by the then Minister for Sport on 14 December last year imply that the
betting levy will be retained only until such time as an alternative
form of funding can be found? Presumably the implication is that that
funding would be up to a similar level of £90 million to
£100 million. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether
discussions are ongoing with regard to finding an alternative source of
funding, or whether there will be no further discussion in the light of
the independent review groups consideration, and that we are
likely to see the levy continue? People need some indication of the
likely level of security of this form of funding for the
industry.
4.58
pm
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I thank the hon. Members for Bath and for
Bournemouth, East for their comments, particularly the former, with his
knowledge of the relevant issues. I am pleased that the Opposition
parties support the orders, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for
Bournemouth, East for his support. I hate to think what he will be like
when he argues against
us.
The two main
issues relate to the Tote and the levy. I start by answering the hon.
Gentleman in a more distinguished manner than perhaps I did with my
flippant contribution about the history of the Tote and the
issues facing it. He said that its sale is an embarrassment to the
Government; it is not. We want to ensure that the Tote is sold, and
that it is sold to suitable people. He asked about the distinction
between a fair price and a market price. He is quite right that the
discussion of the Totes fair market price in
relation to the Commission and issues around state aid was
delaying its sale.
Mr.
Mike Hall (Weaver Vale) (Lab): I wonder whether I misheard
the hon. Member for Bath when he said that a ruling in the European
Union was the problem, rather than one in the European Court of
Justice? To clarify, it was an ECJ ruling that caused the
problem.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful for that clarification. On the
issue of fair price or market price, the Government regarded a fair
price as one that recognised racings historical
interest.
Mr.
Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West) (Lab): Is not a
fair price really what somebody will pay for
something?
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I do not want to get drawn into too detailed a
description of fair or market price. I am trying to explain why the
Department had the difficulties with the Commission. The Commission
took that view that an element of state aid was included. We were
trying to consider the historical impact of racing. That was the cause
of the long delay. We now have an offer for the Tote, as hon. Members
have said. There is a broader consortium of racing interests, including
the staff and management of the Tote. We are in
detailed discussions across Government, because this does not involve
only one Department or another. We hope to announce shortly
what the situation is.
Mr.
Ellwood:
I am grateful to the Minister for that
clarification. The fact that we are looking to approve these statutory
instruments suggests that we will not see any
movement on the sale until at least 1 September. Will the Minister
outline the time frame within which he thinks the discussions with the
consortium will be concluded and the sale will near
fruition?
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am not prepared to do that this afternoon. In
the 10 days I have been in my new post, I have been brought up to speed
on the negotiations. It is right that we consider the issues across
Government. We want to make a decision at the earliest possible
opportunity.
Mr.
Foster:
I should like to help the Ministers hon.
Friend, the Member for Weaver Vale. I apologise if I confused the
Minister and the Committee. I was hoping to make the point that the
issue of the fair or unfair price level concerned the European Union.
In November 2004, the European Court of Justice made the ruling not
about price, but about the ability to raise substantial funds through
the sale of data, which was the replacement funding, so both aspects
were
involved.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving
us the benefit of his knowledge of the issues. I shall move on to the
issue of levies, which he raised. I intended to write to him, but in
the light of that clarification, perhaps I do not need to. He was right
about the conclusions of the future funding of racing review group. My
right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central announced the
retention of the levy
in December 2006. The Government were content then that there was no
viable alternative to the levy, which is our position now. We still
have not identified a stable commercial alternative.
The hon. Gentleman will be
aware that the 47th levy is approaching fast. The industry has to get
its act together to resolve the many issues that it faces concerning
the levy. I am sure that we will have discussions in future about
progress on that matter. The Government support voluntary commercial
payments from betting to sport, which relates to the point that was
raised about the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Central. We consider that funds raised should go towards
sports betting integrity and grass-roots sport. I am happy to continue
down that
route.
Mr.
Foster:
The Minister says that he supports the
continuation of voluntary contributions. His right hon. Friend the
Member for Sheffield, Central was at the point of moving towards
mandatory contributions. Has further thought been given to
that?
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am not at that point yet. I will consider it
in the light of my discussions with representatives
of the industry. Having heard my explanations, I hope that the Committee
will support the
orders.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horseracing
Betting Levy) Order
2007.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Gambling Act
2005 (Horseracing Totalisator Board) Order
2007.[Mr.
Sutcliffe.]
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of
Schedule 6) Order 2007.[Mr.
Sutcliffe.]
Committee
rose at five minutes past Five
oclock.