Examination of Witnesses (Questions 114
- 119)
TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER 2007
MR GERRY
SUTCLIFFE MP, MR
DAVID FIZGERALD
AND MS
ELEANOR VAN
HEYNINGEN
Q114 Chairman: We now move to the
final part of our session. Can I welcome in his first appearance,
but I suspect not his last, before the Committee the Minister
for Sport, Gerry Sutcliffe, together with the Head of the Gambling
and National Lottery Licensing Division at DCMS, David Fitzgerald,
and the Head of the Betting and Racing Branch of the Gambling
and National Lottery Licensing Division at DCMS, Eleanor van Heyningen.
Minister, we have heard evidence from The Racecourse Association,
the bookmakers and, most recently, the Levy Board and the National
Joint Pitch Council. All of this seems to have come about as a
result of the passage of the Gambling Act in 2005. Did the Government
intend that the position should change in the way that it is going
to when they proposed this legislation?
Mr Sutcliffe: First of all, Chairman,
thank you very much for the opportunity to give our views to the
Committee. I thank the Committee for dealing with this matter,
which was one of the first issues I dealt with as the new Minister
for Sport and so I took a great deal of interest in the issue.
The Government's position on the Gambling Act was that it came
to fruition in 2005 following the Budd Report in 2000 and it was
very clearly consulted upon, but it was never the Government's
intention to get into the issue that arrived in terms of the deeply
held position of both parties in this matter.
Q115 Chairman: Did they know that
this was the likely consequence?
Mr Sutcliffe: As I understand
it, the consultation process for the Gambling Act was quite involved
following the Budd Report and there were a variety of notifications
about what the Government's intentions were.
Q116 Chairman: I was the Opposition
spokesman throughout the entire Committee Stage of the Gambling
Act and I do not remember on-course bookmaking being mentioned
once.
Mr Fitzgerald: I think the May
2003 position paper relating to this subject is absolutely critical
in this respect. The fact that both the FRB and the RCA have cited
the 2003 position paper in support of their position this morning
for me underlines that it presented a fair summary of the position.
What the paper did was it explained the case for modernisation
of the five times rule and it acknowledged that this would have
ramifications for the administration of racing and the pitch system
in particular. It argued that it would require a negotiated commercial
agreement between bookmakers and racecourses to resolve that.
It implied that some pitch system could form part of the new commercial
arrangements and, presciently given that we are here today, it
also recognised that it would not be easy and plumped for the
option which would allow five years for those commercial negotiations
to take place.
Q117 Chairman: The evidence we received
suggested that the changes which were widely publicised and were
then flagged up to the bookmakers related to the ending of the
five times rule and the extension of access with potentially new
entrants into the betting ring. It did not concern the security
of tenure issue which everybody believed was not even in dispute.
That is the evidence we were presented with.
Mr Fitzgerald: My colleague, Ms
van Heyningen, is probably better placed than me to answer on
that one. All we can say on the security of tenure issue is that
at no stage has any evidence been presented to us that it existed.
We understand very much the deeply held views of the FRB and its
members that it did. The changes that were presaged by the 2003
position paper related very much to the regulation of on-course
bookmaking and not to the administration of it.
Q118 Chairman: You say there was
no evidence that this security of tenure existed. The Horserace
Betting Levy Board, who has just given evidence before you, is
a Government appointed body. As far as they were concerned, they
told us it did exist and that they had administered all these
trades, along with the National Joint Pitch Council, on the basis
that it was security of tenure in perpetuity.[33]
Ms van Heyningen: The Levy Board
did advise the Government on horseracing and in the evidence they
gave to you they have been quite clear that at the time the pitch
list position auction system was set up there was no security
of tenure given and that was our understanding. It is for that
reason that that was not mentioned explicitly in the 2003 paper.
It is also worth noting that the system of pitch list positions
and the allocation of pitch lists is never something that sat
within legislation. It was not codified in the 1963 legislation
and is not in the 2005 legislation.
Mr Sutcliffe: As you will be aware,
having been the Opposition spokesperson at that time, that there
has been a long history on this issue in terms of 1928 was the
starting point of this system. I was very keen to get to the heart
of the matter very early on. There was an Adjournment Debate held
in Westminster Hall when I asked a question of my hon friend the
Member for Brighton who raised the issue about why did people
think that that issue of tenure had been there in perpetuity and
as of yet nobody has proven to me or given me evidence that that
ever existed in terms of being codified.
Q119 Chairman: I suggest you look
at the evidence we have just heard from the National Joint Pitch
Council and the Horserace Betting Levy Board because as far as
they were concerned it was in perpetuity. They said that the reason
it was not made explicit was because as far as they were concerned
it was not even an issue. The Chairman of the NJPC said that when
he heard the RCA's position he was "stunned".
Mr Sutcliffe: Exactly. I have
held meetings where I have tried to get to the bottom of the issue
and in terms of seeking a solution and moving the thing forward
because of the deeply held views that there have been. It could
be argued that the RCA's letter in March was not helpful in terms
of how the issue was dealt with. Clearly as we more towards 2012
I would hope that there is room for compromise and that the issue
of the pitches in its current position can be looked at in the
commercial negotiations.
33 Note by witness: The Levy Board indicated
that its position remains as described in its written submission. Back
| 
