Clause 7 - General betting duty: betting exchanges
Finance Bill
10:45 am
Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)
I have read the amendments and received representations from the Association of British Bookmakers Ltd., which the hon. Gentleman so ably explained. I have considered them carefully and one issue that he is relying on is open to question. He will detect from the tone of my comments that we are not minded to support him today. However, he has raised some valid issues, which, in the circumstances of this rapidly changing market, must be addressed. It is simply not good enough to ignore them.
The hon. Gentleman based much of his argument on the issue of a level playing field and I understand where he is coming from and why. In terms of a level playing field, one tends to think of rights and responsibilities but also of unfair competition. It is on that latter limb of the level playing field argument that he must be basing his case.
There is a challenge to that because we are discussing a market of choice for customers and, as with all marketplaces, whether the product is available and affordable. With betting, affordability is an interesting notion for the normal marketplace test, but it is entertainment, so we can put to one side the issue of whether it goes beyond entertainment to compulsion. However, that is not what is behind the hon. Gentleman's amendments and, because it is that type of marketplace, we as a Parliament and a legislature must be very cautious when considering passing laws, as suggested in the amendments, that would defy the way in which the market is moving. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised valid concerns. If he is, through the amendments, providing a serious and well-thought-through marker of what needs to be addressed, that is fair and helpful to the Committee, to the House and to those beyond. I in no way criticise that, but I am not in a position to offer the official Opposition's support for the amendments today.
I take seriously the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised in regard to the British Horseracing Board. I am a little more familiar with that, although I do not partake in the ownership of a leg or even a forelock. I have had representations on such matters on various occasions, not least because I have a constituent who has been a member of that board and who has ensured that I am aware of its views.
We have to recognise—as did the hon. Gentleman—that betting exchanges are a very successful new phenomenon. Although it is absolutely right for the margin earned by an exchange to be taxable, we have to be extraordinarily careful in addressing the issue of how to make that equivalent to what happens with other forms of betting and gaming under the GPT regime. The real complaint from the Association of British Bookmakers is, as I understand it, that there is a chance that it will be forced to compete against what is in effect an unregulated sector of the market.
There is always a problem with the word ''regulation''. My party and I abhor red tape. We abhor bureaucracy and the overwhelming culture among legislators and the civil service—with the greatest of respect to them—that they all the time
must find something to do, rather than something to undo. We should all always assume that regulation is the worst of all options. However, in this case, I think that it is proper to look at the complex issues that arise, although perhaps not at law. We are dealing with a type of business that is not only cross-border but even ethereal, or ether-driven. That challenges our normal notions of jurisdiction.
I am conscious that one could go down a long cul-de-sac on that point—it would certainly be a cul-de-sac where my personal knowledge of the conflicts of laws and rudimentary legal education are concerned—but there is a major issue here. This is the sort of real-life example that can impact on what are often academic and learned issues, upon which it would be wholly presumptuous of me to give an opinion.