| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all the work he has done on this subject in the past, and I think that the excellent announcement we have just heard from the Minister may be attributable partly to the pressure he has brought to bear over the past 18 months. However, one must say that the solution, at first sight, appears to be so simple that one really wonders why the Home Office and those responsible for national insurance did not adopt it much earlier. Obviously, it did not need legislation for them to make the issue of a national insurance number coincide with a decision letter. One also wonders why it was necessary to have a pilot for something that is so obviously for the benefit of all concerned, and why it needed to be tested in one area of the country.
But perhaps that is being a little ungracious in welcoming the news that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has given us this evening. We should be rejoicing that, from now onwards at any rate, people will able to claim ordinary benefits immediately they get the decision letter. That is a great advance on what has happened in the past. I am also pleased to hear what the noble Baroness says about the computer links between the IND and NASS, although I understand that those are not yet fully in operation but are in the process of being implemented. Knowing how long these things take, I do not expect that it will happen tomorrow. I hope that we shall perhaps have a progress report at some date in the near future, because now that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has told us about it, we will obviously be keeping an eye on it to ensure that it happens as soon as possible.
I am also pleased to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, does not think that any legislation will be necessary to give effect to the improvements we are talking about. For that reason, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment and to conclude our proceedings this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
(Second Day)
Monday, 5 April 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood) in the Chair.]
Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 10:
- Page 5, line 16, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment will prove uncontroversial but it is nevertheless important. Its purpose is twofold: to ensure, first, that there is continuity for the exclusive betting licence; and, secondly, that the seven-year licence is not reduced by starting it early. The Tote circulated a most helpful briefing on the matter, which I am sure many Members of the Committee will have received. The Tote seeks reassurance that the exclusive licence for the successor company will start on the same day as the Tote is abolished.
There are two reasons for that. First and most importantly, nothing in the Bill at present requires the exclusive licence to start on the day that the Tote is abolished. That could lead to a situation where the successor company is left to fend for itself without an exclusive licence. Moreover, no time limit is set on that delay. Clause 8(4)(a) states that the exclusive licence can be issued,
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain why the Bill contains the option to start the exclusive licence before the abolition of the Tote, and that he will provide reassurances of the kind sought by the Tote. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: This amendment covers the same ground as Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, tabled in my name. "Before" and "after" are combined in this
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): The issue is certainly uncontroversial, because we intend that the exclusive licence should start at the same time. There is no controversy at all; it is simply that one cannot legislate for things about which one cannot be sure. We cannot be absolutely sure that something might not go wrong.
We would not have the exclusive licence start before the Racing Trust took over because it would quite reasonably object to any shortening of the period of its exclusive licence. That is one of the things that I am sure it will insist on as purchaser of the successor company. We would not wish to have the licence start afterwards either, but let us suppose that somebody was not available for signing, for example. This is purely trivial; there is no intention that there should be any significant distance on either side between the sale and the start point of the exclusive licence. We must simply provide for things going wrong.
Lord Moynihan: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I see his definition of something going wrong as being an issue of no greater import than someone not being available for signature. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 13:
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 25, which are grouped together. Sadly, my noble friend Lord Astor cannot be with the Committee today. We know that he made an impressive, useful contribution at the first Committee sitting. Like me, he believes that Amendment No. 13, tabled in his name, and Amendment No. 19, in my name, are particularly important. They have been grouped with a number of similar amendments—not least those of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
Although I am grateful that so many others are also pressing the Government to ensure that the exclusive licence is not limited to just seven years, our amendment perhaps offers the best of both worlds by leaving the decision open for future governments. Our amendments are designed to protect the interests of racing and punters by helping to maintain fair competition within the betting markets.
Furthermore, Amendment No. 19 will ensure that the Bill does not tie our hands now to a decision that should rightly be taken in the future. The government
It is clear to many noble Lords and me that pool betting helps to provide a check on the fixed-odds betting and vice versa. It is a long time since I read economics at university. In the light of the questionable coxing in this year's Boat Race, I am not inclined to say which university. However, what is more important than rowing results—at least in this context—is the way that competition in the market place works, particularly after the Minister for Sport and Tourism accused Her Majesty's Opposition in another place of promoting an anti-competitive policy.
With pool betting and fixed-odds betting, we clearly have two products with a high degree of substitutability between them. While pool betting and fixed-odds betting are, of course, different bets, punters can nevertheless freely and easily switch from one to the other as the fancy takes them. The ability to swap seamlessly between the two products limits the potential downside of a monopoly position in one of the sectors.
However, if we undermine the market for pool betting, the market for fixed-odds betting will lose an important check. My economic argument has a second string, which was eloquently rehearsed in 1995 by my colleagues when they established the National Lottery. That argument is equally valid today. There are certain instances where a monopoly is the most efficient way of organising a market. Thus, there is only one National Lottery. That is the way that we can best guarantee the highest prizes and the lowest administration costs.
The same logic applies to pool betting. As was said in another place, racing will benefit from a bigger pool rather than a multiplicity of "puddle" betting. The danger of puddle betting is that many smaller courses will not have a pool betting service; it would simply not be economical. That would deprive them of significant income. Additionally, the more puddles there are, the higher the relative administration costs for each puddle. Thus, less is returned to the punter and less is returned to racing. So everyone loses out.
The Government seem determined to work against the rule of economies of scale. Yet, at the same time, they want to reduce cross subsidies between the richer courses and the less popular ones for the benefit of racing. I am aware that Ministers have had some difficulty in persuading the Office of Fair Trading of the merits of granting an exclusive pool betting licence. Perhaps future Ministers will have better luck with future directors general of the Office of Fair Trading.
I would stress that nothing in this amendment—or in a number of these amendments—commits the Government to renewing the exclusive pool betting licence. It merely permits a future Secretary of State to make a decision about whether to renew the licence.
The terms that we propose for the extension of the exclusive licence will include a built-in check, but the licence would not necessarily be given to the successor body in seven years' time. Instead, it could be awarded to another company. There is a strong analogy with the National Lottery here. On that basis, I hope and trust that the Minister will consider my amendment and that he will not commit future governments to the abolition of the exclusive pool betting licence, which has served racing well for more than 70 years. I beg to move.
"( ) The exclusive licence shall commence on the appointed day."
"before, on or after the appointed day".
It makes every sense that there be continuity for the exclusive betting licence. There is no case for the type of delay that could result from the legislation as currently drafted. Secondly, at the other end of the spectrum, the Tote is also concerned that the exclusive licence could start before the appointed day. In that event, the period of the exclusive licence would be reduced to fewer than seven years, which would also be detrimental to the Tote's successor company.
Page 5, line 24, leave out paragraph (c).
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page