| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 July 2007 : Column 254WH—continued
There is no doubting the strength of feeling among the small independent bookmakers. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis). The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough read out a letter that eloquently and articulately describes the real concern and heartache that small bookmakers feel. In a debate that is quite technical, it is important to capture that; what is happening is about real heartache, and the feeling of a group of people that they have, to date, been
betrayed by the Government. I do not say that that was necessarily the Government’s intention, but without a doubt that is what they feel.
We have a system that, with a few exceptions, appears to work well, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked about concerns about corruption. I know that he has raised several times, and continues to raise, issues about the National Joint Pitch Council. No one likes change, and change is on the horizon, but there is concern that the change that is happening will not only strip small bookmakers of their £100 million of assets, but—this is something that engages many of us here today—allow competition from the large bookmakers to swamp those small family businesses that are so important in many of our constituencies.
A period of considerable uncertainty looms, and although I was not a Member of the House when the Gambling Act 2005 was passed, it feels as if the issue of on-course betting was not well considered at the time. It rather got lost in the controversy that surrounded casinos. It is very easy to dismiss concerns about change as simple unwillingness to change. I believe that, as we have heard from hon. Members this morning, the debate is about considerably more than that. The Minister asked for evidence—I know he came back to that point in a later intervention—but whatever the evidence, the perception and the reality is that the small bookmakers felt that they owned something, and they now feel that someone is about to take away what belonged to them.
The matter could go to court. Everyone could spend a great deal of time in court, including the Government. The small bookmakers could spend their last pennies on it, and whatever the outcome no one would be very satisfied at the end. Alternatively, the Minister could agree today to reconsider the situation, and leave the people in the Public Gallery—it is always good to see people listening to debates—with some reassurance that he will examine the issue with an open mind. The current situation is of exactly the type that gives all levels of government—I am not talking about the present Government or making party political points—a very bad name, when they wade in without understanding the issues on the ground and bring forward legislation, while the small players at the front get forgotten. That is particularly relevant in the context of an Act that has courted, and continues to court, controversy.
I know that the Minister would like quite a lot of time to respond, and I think that all hon. Members present for the debate, together with, as I have said, the people in the Public Gallery, are anxious to hear what he has to say, so I shall not take up much more time. Fundamentally I want the Minister’s assurance that he will reconsider, and look for a solution. I agree that we are not necessarily looking for a compromise, but want a solution. When debate on this matter is finally wrapped up and the Minister has considered it, people will need to feel that he has taken their concerns into account, and that they will not be stripped of something that they understandably feel belongs to them.
Derek Conway (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind him that the only people whom I see in this Room are Members of Parliament, and he must bear that in mind.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Thank you, Mr. Conway; I welcome you to the proceedings this morning. I thank right hon. and hon. Members of all parties for their words of welcome to me in my new ministerial role, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) was able to secure the debate.
It would be foolish of me to underestimate or to fail to understand the high level of interest in on-course betting and the emotion that the issue generates, not least because of the passionate speeches made here today by hon. Members, but also because of the many letters that my Department has received. I have read through the previous debates, and I understand many of the issues that need to be considered. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), wrote to hon. Members about some of the matters that were raised in the previous debate. This is my first opportunity to offer my thanks to my right hon. Friend for his work as Minister for Sport. He will be a hard act to follow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, like his predecessor in the constituency, the late Robin Cook, has a great love for and appreciation of British horse racing. I share his enthusiasm for that great sport and for the heritage, tradition and characters that go with it. I have shared racing day experiences with many hon. Members who are present today. I agree that a key part of the experience of live horse racing is to be able to place a bet with a bookmaker on the race course. It is exactly because we want to preserve that experience and encourage more people to enjoy live racing that we have maintained in the Gambling Act 2005 the right of bookmakers to be allowed into betting rings on race courses to take bets.
Before I address my hon. Friend’s specific points, it might be helpful if I set out some of the background to the issue. The Horserace Betting Levy Board is a non-departmental public body that operates in accordance with the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, as amended. The board’s main functions are to collect payments from bookmakers and use them for the three statutory purposes that relate to the improvement of horse racing set out in the 1963 Act. Since 1972, the board has also had the responsibility for issuing certificates of approval to race courses. Race courses can be issued with a certificate of approval only if they provide a place on-course for bookmakers to carry on their business.
At the time in question, the National Association of Bookmakers had responsibility for the administration of betting rings, under agreement with the Racecourse Association. As has been mentioned, in 1997, after seven years of disputes, that agreement was terminated by the RCA. That is a fundamental point with respect to the relationships that have existed all the way through. To ensure that betting rings were properly administered after the termination of that agreement, the levy board instigated a review.
Following an extensive consultation, the review recommended that a new administrative body should be established to be responsible for the administration and conduct of on-course betting rings. That new body was of course the National Joint Pitch Council. That brings
me back to the point of my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow), which was to arrive at an understanding of what the NJPC’s role had been. I am informed that it never gave anyone the lifelong entitlement to a pitch. There were always qualifications, particularly as the new legislation came in: people had to study the intention of the new legislation.
The NJPC is not a public body. It is a company limited by guarantee. The Department has no direct influence over its decisions. Its board includes a number of bookmaker representatives. Its functions are essentially administrative, relating to the conduct of bookmakers on race courses through the national pitch rules. Among other things, those rules cover the allocation of pitches to on-course bookmakers. It is a condition of the levy board’s certificates of approval that race courses observe the national pitch rules that the board has endorsed.
In late 1998, the NJPC also set up a system for the auctioning of pitch list positions. That was implemented at the request of the levy board to ensure greater freedom, transparency and accessibility in the on-course market. As we have heard, it replaced the old “dead men’s shoes” system, whereby almost the only way to secure a pitch position was through inheritance. The auction system was a mechanism for one bookmaker to sell a pitch list position to another. Agreement was reached with the levy board and the NJPC on those auctions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston is right to say that under the Gambling Act 2005, the certificate of approval system will be replaced. From 1 September 2007, the new premises licences will be issued by local licensing authorities, which will have a duty to take into account the three objectives of the Gambling Act: keeping gambling free of crime; keeping gambling fair and open; and protecting children and vulnerable people.
The new system of licensing will be clearer, more transparent and more consistent than ever. It will focus on the regulation of premises, including race courses, rather than on their administration, and allow race courses and bookmakers to develop a mature, commercial relationship for the first time. That is entirely appropriate, because it is good for racing and for bookies, and it is in line with this Government’s aim of minimising bureaucratic burdens and allowing successful industries to run themselves.
It is not right to suggest, as some have done, that the Gambling Act itself does away with pitch lists. Although the certificate of approval system provided a certain authority to support the pitch list system, the lists themselves have never been recognised in statute. They do not—and never have—confer ownership of land to any of the pitch-list place holders, and it remains open for race courses and bookmakers to retain the existing system, or similar arrangements, if they so wish.
I freely recognise that the RCA’s announcement that it will cease to recognise the lists from September 2012 has caused great consternation among bookmakers, as has been said today.
Mr. Devine: When my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough suggested an extension of two years to 2014, I magically carried out a survey among pitch bookmakers and they unanimously rejected the proposal.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—so quickly something rises and then is shot down. The spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) is trying to achieve is the feel that I get from the tenure of the debate. We are alive to the concerns that exist.
Anyone who has followed the development of the Gambling Act will know that it has been characterised by frequent and thorough consultation, as has been said. We raised the issue of the administration of on-course betting in a consultation in 2000, and again last year. We received representations from bookmakers and race courses, and we examined them all closely. I know from letters that we have received from constituents that many are worried about the future of their bookmaking businesses post-1 September.
It is worth saying straight away that the Gambling Act itself does not threaten bookmakers’ businesses or livelihoods in the way that has been described. Let me explain why. As I have already mentioned, the mandatory and default conditions attached to premises licences continue to require race courses to provide a place on course for bookmakers to carry on their business.
It is worth reflecting on the position paper issued by my Department in 2003 on the licensing of betting premises, to which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred. It set out the Department’s views very clearly. Paragraph 2.6 said that
“it would seem odd that racecourses should not be able to ask for market prices from on-course bookmakers for using areas of their land on which bookmakers are conducting a business.”
The paper went on to suggest that bookmakers would need a transitional period during which to recoup the value of their pitches and place their businesses on a profitable footing before the fully commercial system was introduced. We have honoured that proposal by providing a transitional period in the mandatory and default conditions: the five times rule will continue until 2012. For its part, the RCA has confirmed its current intention to honour the existing pitch list system for the same period.
I understand that the NJPC continued to run auctions for pitch list positions up to February this year. That was the NJPC’s own decision. I note, however, that in auctions since 2005, a clear warning has been given to potential buyers that they should familiarise themselves with the new arrangements set out in the Gambling Act before deciding whether to bid for positions. That is why I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Hove about that point. I am not unsympathetic to some of the things that she said, and I wanted to hear her view.
As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said, we have facilitated an industry working group to look at the wider administrative issues that relate to on-course betting. There are copies of the group’s terms of reference and membership in the Libraries of both Houses. On the question that he asked me, I should make it clear that the working group, which is drawn from representatives of betting and racing, took a decision not to include consideration of this issue in its terms of reference.
I realise that the definitive nature of the RCA’s announcement has caused some alarm, and, in the spirit of continuing consultation and co-operation, I want to propose two areas for further action. First, I want the conclusions of the working group on the
regulation and administration of on-course betting to be put out to consultation. Although, as I have said, the working group is not charged with examining the allocation of pitches, it is developing important proposals about an administrative framework to ensure the continuing smooth operation of on-course bookmaking, in the interests of the punter. I should like the proposals to be published and thus open to consultation for all interested parties as soon as possible. I make it plain now that I should also like them to enshrine principles of integrity, propriety and proper accountability.
Secondly, I want the race courses’ representatives and on-course bookmakers to sit down together to consider how the existing pitch lists and the new commercial arrangements after 2012 can co-exist. It is only right for a mature and modern industry to come to a sensible and workable conclusion of its own making. I say that not only as the new Sports Minister, but as a former Competition Minister in the former Department of Trade and Industry. We have tried to make industry become responsible for its own decisions and its own future.
There is clearly a divergence of viewpoint between what the RCA wants to achieve and what the on-course bookmakers want to achieve. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ryedale for offering the all-party group on racing and bloodstock to facilitate those discussions. It is only by the bodies that I mentioned coming together that we can get an agreement. People have got the right to go to law, and nobody can take that away from these individuals.
Chris Bryant:
I remember the Minister taking the Consumer Credit Bill through Parliament. He was keen to make the same point then: it is always best if the
industry can manage its own affairs well. However, he always said that it was necessary for Government to reserve the right to legislate if necessary. Will he do the same in this case?
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right that that was the style of operation in that regard. The complexity in this case involves the change from the certificates to the licensing regime that we put in place, and it would make legislation more difficult. I am prepared to say that this situation needs to be resolved—it cannot and should not be left unresolved. Meetings should take place, and we will facilitate them. I am happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this further, although I am sending the message out loud and clear that it should be the RCA and the on-course bookmakers who reach an adequate conclusion, because that is the right way forward.
As I have said, I shall continue to monitor the situation. Hopefully, we can get the interests of the racegoer and racing put to the forefront, because, as I have found in my short time in this job, many other issues in racing will need to be addressed. Racing is clearly an integral part of our culture and society, and I will look to the horse racing authorities to play their part; a number of disputes seem to be taking place on several issues and we now need to bottom them out. I am prepared to play my part in that, in consultation with hon. Members. Although the reassurances that I have given today will not meet all the requirements of the on-course bookmakers, I hope that they show the intention: this was not about the Gambling Act; it is about the ability of the industry to sort itself out—I hope that that is what will take place.
10.58 am
Yardley Green Hospital Site
11 am
Mr. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on the future of the Yardley Green hospital site, and I am pleased to serve under your wise and experienced chairmanship, Mr. Conway. I welcome the late-arriving Minister and warmly congratulate her on her elevation to the position that she now holds.
The Yardley Green hospital site has generated huge concern and anger in the local community. The site is in my constituency which, notwithstanding the success of the British economy over the past decade or so, is still one of the most deprived in the country. Some areas still have unemployment of more than 15 per cent. and there is massive pressure on all public services in the Bordesley Green area. The primary and secondary schools in the area are full and the more popular ones are massively oversubscribed. The pressure on social housing is enormous, and there is ever-growing need for health and recreational facilities. There is also a high birth rate.
Against that background, the local population saw the closure of the Yardley Green hospital as an opportunity to address some of those issues. The hospital site is close to Heartlands hospital, which has expanded recently to take in Solihull hospital. There has also been expansion on the existing Heartlands hospital site. I had no issue with the health authority when it judged that, with the growth of Heartlands hospital, Yardley Green hospital was surplus to requirements, but there was a clear expectation in the community that the site would be used for much-needed affordable housing, a desperately needed new secondary school, expanded general health facilities including—this is important—day care mental health facilities, and recreational facilities that could be used by local people.
It therefore came as a total shock when the Heart of Birmingham primary care trust, in conjunction with the Birmingham and Solihull mental health trust, began a consultation with local residents on the possibility of the site being used solely for mental health facilities. Several meetings were held at which representatives from the mental health trust made presentations about the need for additional mental health facilities in the west midlands. Initially, it was pointed out that no decision had been taken and that the purpose of the consultation was to ascertain the views of local people. It was also pointed out that in addition to the Yardley Green hospital site, three or four other sites in and around Birmingham were being considered and that similar consultations were taking place.
At the meetings in Bordesley Green, there was overwhelming opposition from local residents to the suggestion that the site should be used solely for mental health facilities, because of the other pressing needs in the area. At those meetings, I made clear my opposition to the site being used solely for mental health facilities. I pointed out that I had had previous dealings with the mental health trust in respect of another site in my constituency and that, to put it frankly, I was not convinced that the mental health trust or the health authority were acting in totally good faith in giving the impression that they were conducting a consultative process.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |