Clause 8 - Exclusive licence
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I will not speak from my notes at this point. I will deal with this matter politically. It is interesting that the Liberals and the Conservatives are now coming together on an anti-competition policy. I never thought that I would stand in the House of
Commons, at the Dispatch Box in the Chamber or in Committee, and have to defend competition against a new anti-competitive alliance of the Conservatives and Liberals. It is astounding that that has happened with regard to the racing industry and the Tote. It is amazing that protectionism is booming on the Opposition Benches in a way that would have been inconceivable in previous eras of Conservatism.
A Labour Government are being asked to protect the Tote by licensing and all the other necessary aspects of protectionism. What are we asking for? We are giving the Tote seven years to find its feet with a 50-50 split on the finances, and we are asking it to throw the shackles of the public sector borrowing requirement off its back and use the innovation that we have already seen, including in the shadow racing trusts, so that it can go into the marketplace and defend itself as a Tote—as a pool-better. That is all that we are asking for. All the competition authorities, both nationally and internationally, agree with us. Against us are the backwoodsmen of protectionism. Liberalism and Conservatism are coming together to form a coalition force, so the script can be thrown away.
On the point about a five-year review, the Government continue to keep everything under review. If it is in the public interest for a review to be conducted after five or six years, and if the competition authorities agree to that, the matter will go to the Gaming Board—and then, hopefully, to the Gambling Commission—and a view will be taken as to whether things are operating in the public interest. The drive to put the Tote into the modern marketplace in a robust form is intended to help the punter by giving choice. That is in the public interest. If matters were to move against the public interest, as is currently perceived to be the case, any sensible Government would want to review them. There will be the necessary mechanisms in the Gaming Board, and there will, I hope, be a Gambling Commission. What was happening would have to be in the public interest and have the support of the competition authorities.
Amendments Nos. 11, 52, 53 and 12 would allow the Secretary of State to require the exclusive licence to be issued more than once. The Government resist that approach. The licence is to be non-renewable for the reasons stated. The agreement to an exclusive period of seven years is dependent on it being a one-off, non-renewable licence. Anyone who says that it will be renewed will take out of the culture of the new Tote—the new racing trust—the ability to be dynamic and say, ''We are going into the marketplace in seven years.''
If there were a safety valve, in that we could have another licence, the culture would be totally different. It is necessary for the Tote to have a cutting edge if it is to go to the marketplace with a product that has been called the bedrock of the gambling industry. There is no doubt that the Tote provides security to the punter out there. It is a respected and honest organisation, and by its very nature, it is not there to rip the punter off, as some would say. It therefore has a marketing ability, and if we give it the tools to go ahead and give
it a fair wind for seven years, it will be able stand on its own in the marketplace and will not need such protection.
If the licence is revoked before the seven years are up, we do not believe that it should be reissued to that company. There are no powers in the Bill to issue the exclusive licence to anyone else and no powers for the Secretary of State to transfer it. We therefore believe that amendment No. 12 is unnecessary. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire not to press the amendment.